miriam on tue 14 mar 00
Ivor mentions the implications of a teapot: "meeting, friendship,
discourse, sharing, invigoration and comfort."
I am exploring teapots right now, and teabowls, and am excited by the
process and the products. I find the tea things and related plates,
trays, vases (all relating to the overall sense of the relaxing
experience around a pot/cup/mug of tea) a challenge and a pleasure to
make.
I've been looking at Lana Wilson's teapot forms in Michelle Coakes'
Creative Pottery. They're highly textured, and she uses symbolic stamp
marks to enhance them. They're called "ceremonial teapots" in the
text. I like them very much. Wilson makes a spout. The general form is
a teapot. There isn't a functional lid, but a form that is in the lid
place, connecting the spout on one side of the pot to the handle on the
other, and firmly scored and slipped into place. These pots aren't
meant to function as tea vessels, but as other objects. But what? Are
they her way of saying something about the senses of 'meeting,
discourse, friendship, comfort,' etc? Maybe- I read somewhere her
stamps are often symbols American hoboes in the 1920's and 30's would
leave in selected places for each other, symbols which are often used in
tramp art. I wonder if anyone is interested in exploring the world of
functional-appearing vessels that do not perform a function, here on
Clayart? Please don't send me any abuse on opening the form vs.
function discussion!!! It keeps resurfacing because it's seminal to
clay!
Some other clay people making forms in this concept that give me pause
are Adrian Saxe (he says his could technically be used, but would
you???), and others who incorporate impermanent materials like paper or
feathers into functional forms, making those forms non-functional. Many
of these are quite interesting or beautiful, but until I can grasp some
underlying concept in them, I'm a bit unsettled by them. Unless that's
the point?
I'm self taught to a large degree. My formal art education is very
spotty. Clayart, at this time in my life, is graduate school. Anyone
interested in a good discussion?
Mimi Stadler
reldats5@home.com
Teres Whitney on wed 15 mar 00
I do as you put it make teapots the could function although I don't
recommend it. The shapes do not lend themselves for use only of collection.
I do strictly hand building.
I started doing teapots and related for no particular reason other than I
wanted the challenge. The theory I work with on all piece is "function
follows form". I concentrate on an appealing form and if it functions ok
and if it doesn't that is ok too. I struggled with the "opening" question
and couldn't find a satisfying answer so I decided to let it go. That is
where my theory was born. I am a very structural, design oriented person.
Often times architects are drawn to my work. They have said they like the
angular designs, similar to construction. Now I am producing more and more
designs in tea pots, graduating to cream and sugars with platters and have
tea cup designs in mind. Some teapots with no openings are starting to
appear.
The bottom line for me is excellence of form. I want something interesting,
whimsical and fun. I let someone else figure out if they use it to display
like sculpture or try to use it (if possible).
There is an interesting article in American Style magazine, Spring 2000,
some history, some market information on teapots of the 21 century.
Teres-Dallas
-----Original Message-----
From: miriam
To: CLAYART@LSV.UKY.EDU
Date: Tuesday, March 14, 2000 1:19 PM
Subject: non-functional teapots
>----------------------------Original message----------------------------
> Ivor mentions the implications of a teapot: "meeting, friendship,
>discourse, sharing, invigoration and comfort."
> I am exploring teapots right now, and teabowls, and am excited by
the
>process and the products. I find the tea things and related plates,
>trays, vases (all relating to the overall sense of the relaxing
>experience around a pot/cup/mug of tea) a challenge and a pleasure to
>make.
> I've been looking at Lana Wilson's teapot forms in Michelle Coakes'
>Creative Pottery. They're highly textured, and she uses symbolic stamp
>marks to enhance them. They're called "ceremonial teapots" in the
>text. I like them very much. Wilson makes a spout. The general form is
>a teapot. There isn't a functional lid, but a form that is in the lid
>place, connecting the spout on one side of the pot to the handle on the
>other, and firmly scored and slipped into place. These pots aren't
>meant to function as tea vessels, but as other objects. But what? Are
>they her way of saying something about the senses of 'meeting,
>discourse, friendship, comfort,' etc? Maybe- I read somewhere her
>stamps are often symbols American hoboes in the 1920's and 30's would
>leave in selected places for each other, symbols which are often used in
>tramp art. I wonder if anyone is interested in exploring the world of
>functional-appearing vessels that do not perform a function, here on
>Clayart? Please don't send me any abuse on opening the form vs.
>function discussion!!! It keeps resurfacing because it's seminal to
>clay!
> Some other clay people making forms in this concept that give me
pause
>are Adrian Saxe (he says his could technically be used, but would
>you???), and others who incorporate impermanent materials like paper or
>feathers into functional forms, making those forms non-functional. Many
>of these are quite interesting or beautiful, but until I can grasp some
>underlying concept in them, I'm a bit unsettled by them. Unless that's
>the point?
> I'm self taught to a large degree. My formal art education is very
>spotty. Clayart, at this time in my life, is graduate school. Anyone
>interested in a good discussion?
>Mimi Stadler
>reldats5@home.com
>
lyla on wed 15 mar 00
>Many
>of these are quite interesting or beautiful, but until I can grasp some
>underlying concept in them, I'm a bit unsettled by them. Unless that's
>the point?
>I'm self taught to a large degree. My formal art education is very
>spotty. Clayart, at this time in my life, is graduate school. Anyone
>interested in a good discussion?
Dear Mimi,
ditto on what you say. i am posting this with trepidation because public
conversation is different that private, and these are my private
thoughts! but, yes, i'm interested in a good discussion.
i cannot offer you any insight about lana, but you've stirred up some great
stuff. with my work, i want to find a way to catch a subtle feeling of
human expression and gesture, people and relationships, so i would say
function goes well with this, as we humans do indeed function (or do we?
maybe if i were trying to get across a feeling of ineptitude then i could
clog the spout or misplace the handle. hmmm).
anyway, virginia scotchie is one who pops into my mind who gives me pause.
her works are bright mat colors and rough textures and slick gold and
tubular forms strangely assembled. i couldn't ever conceive of something
like this, and i'm glad she has because i find it visually intruiging (as
are tons of art work, i.e. mark roth's paintings, or dale chihuly's glass)
. perhaps there's more to her work than that? and of course there's art
work that is not as visually intruiging as it is thought provoking (um, how
about picasso's guernica or judy chicago's dinner party).
if a piece is intruiging enough on some level that compels me to find out
more about it, and when I do, my appreciation becomes enhanced, well, then
i am impressed, at least on an intellectual level. chicago's dinner party
for me fits that to a t. (pots are only a small part intellectual. they're
also emotional, tactile, approachable, and yes, useful).
i think for many of us "potters", we are in part motivated to make vessels
because of their inherent use: you hope the coffee mug will enhance
someone's morning in some slight way, right? or the tea set or liquor set
will make a pleasant evening with friends even more aesthetically pleasing.
perhaps the difference is the SELF-DEFINITION! perhaps it's just that
simple: "potters" are people who make pots and pots are functional objects
made out of clay, and "ceramic artists" are artists who make objects that
happen to be clay (and other materials). how a person refers to themselves
perhaps could provide some insights to their motivations? i am very
curious to know how Lana, Virginia, warren mackenzie, nicholas joerling,
linda christianson, etc. define themselves and why. maybe "potter-artist"
is a clarifying term. no, how about "pottist." yea. i like that. no, how
about "potiste." sorry, getting silly.
i suppose even if you aren't reading this with enthusiasm, writing this
just helps me understand my own thinking better by forcing me to articulate
my thoughts. i'm glad you posted that and look forward to the banter.
take care,
lyla
a self defined potter-sometimes-potiste
miriam on thu 16 mar 00
In response to my interest in Lana Wilson's and other potters/sculptors'
use of functional forms (especially teapots) for non-functional
purposes,
Teres Whitney wrote:
>
The theory I work with on all pieces is "function
> follows form". I concentrate on an appealing form and if it functions ok
> and if it doesn't that is ok too. I struggled with the "opening" question
> and couldn't find a satisfying answer so I decided to let it go. That is
> where my theory was born.
In response to this point Teres makes, I can only contrast my own
background in the practicality of utilitarian objects. For me, at least
so far, form has followed function: a teapot is made for holding and
pouring tea. I concentrate on appealing forms, too, and demand that
they function. So I have a different, but maybe less art-exposed,
sensibility. (Like the guy with the open raincoat in the "expose
yourself to art" poster, I'm working on that. More cleanly.) I know
teapots are considered the most difficult form to do well, because of
the technique and harmony necessary to unite all the components. I
didn't tackle them till now, 15 years after I began in clay.
Teres continues: I am a very structural, design oriented person.
> Often times architects are drawn to my work. They have said they like the
> angular designs, similar to construction. Now I am producing more and more
> designs in tea pots, graduating to cream and sugars with platters and have
> tea cup designs in mind. Some teapots with no openings are starting to
> appear.
I question: Is a teapot with no opening still a teapot? Why make the
cups, cream and sugars, and platters, to go with a teapot with no
opening? Isn't that a thumbing of the nose at logical expectation? Or
is that partly the point? I am intrigued and, inexplicably, delighted.
But still confused and curious.
>
> The bottom line for me is excellence of form.
So far the bottom line for me, in the greening 'burbs of Jersey, is
excellence in function, with beauty of surface integrating into an
enjoyable whole. Perhaps my sense of adventure is underdeveloped??
Mimi Stadler
Ray Aldridge on fri 17 mar 00
At 12:55 PM 3/16/00 EST, you wrote:
>----------------------------Original message----------------------------
> Teres continues: I am a very structural, design oriented person.
>> Often times architects are drawn to my work. They have said they like the
>> angular designs, similar to construction. Now I am producing more and more
>> designs in tea pots, graduating to cream and sugars with platters and have
>> tea cup designs in mind. Some teapots with no openings are starting to
>> appear.
>
>I question: Is a teapot with no opening still a teapot? Why make the
>cups, cream and sugars, and platters, to go with a teapot with no
>opening? Isn't that a thumbing of the nose at logical expectation? Or
>is that partly the point? I am intrigued and, inexplicably, delighted.
>But still confused and curious.
>
I wrote a Comment for CM once on this idea (among others.) It was during a
somewhat bitter period in my life, and perhaps I was unnecessarily harsh in
the way I treated the idea, but I still think my basic point is valid. An
object that resembles a functional pot in every respect but function
becomes a work of conceptual art, and this is a very shallow esthetic sea.
In other words, the first time someone made a teapot with a solid spout, or
a flat pitcher, the concept was exhausted, in esthetic terms. Every flat
pitcher thereafter is simply recycling the original idea, to no apparent
purpose, in my opinion.
A functional pot from which function has been subtracted is less, not more.
This is one of those occasions when the obvious is true, I think.
I should add that many critics would consider me to be full of beans, but I
can't say this keeps me from sleeping soundly.
Ray
Aldridge Porcelain and Stoneware
http://www.goodpots.com
Bob Ward on sat 18 mar 00
Good day all,
I do all non-functional items - First because I am intersted in the
artform (vs the craft) and secondly because even the "functional
objects" I make are RAKU glazed rendering them unsuitable.
The discussions fwd to me by my wife (primarily a functional builder)
have been very interesting -
I feel that a teapot (or whatever) can be as much a clay art form as a
beautiful still life of the same done in water, acrylic, or oil paints,
sculpted in wood, printed on a stamp etc .... The old masters did many
landscapes where the tree did not grow, produce shade, or benefit the
environment. Is it less a "tree" than a sculpted tree tree that would
lend shade and beauty outside a window?
Just my opinion
Bob
"To view and adimre is a function in itself."
T. Rutledge
vince pitelka on sun 19 mar 00
> the way I treated the idea, but I still think my basic point is valid. An
> object that resembles a functional pot in every respect but function
> becomes a work of conceptual art, and this is a very shallow esthetic sea.
> In other words, the first time someone made a teapot with a solid spout,
or
> a flat pitcher, the concept was exhausted, in esthetic terms. Every flat
> pitcher thereafter is simply recycling the original idea, to no apparent
> purpose, in my opinion.
Sorry Ray, but this does not hold water, so to speak (sorry, bad pun). The
above makes no more sense than to say that once a functional pitcher had
been made, the idea was exhausted. A non-functioning teapot form simply
comments on the aesthetic of the teapot, which certainly encompass an
inexhaustible range of possbility. From my own point of view, I would
prefer that the artist go ahead and make the damn thing functional, but I
certainly do not begrudge the sculptor who chooses to reference the teapot
without concern for utilitarian function. You can't relegate such work to
the purely conceptual so casually. And besides, what's wrong with
conceptual art, and why is it such a "shallow aesthetic sea?" If you want
to stick to the pure definition of "aesthetic" and the assumption that art
must be beautiful, then you may have no room for conceptual art. I don't
see the point of limiting the range of possibility to that degree.
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
http://www.craftcenter.tntech.edu/
Ray Aldridge on sun 19 mar 00
At 03:19 PM 3/18/00 EST, you wrote:
>----------------------------Original message----------------------------
>Good day all,
>I do all non-functional items - First because I am intersted in the
>artform (vs the craft) and secondly because even the "functional
>objects" I make are RAKU glazed rendering them unsuitable.
>The discussions fwd to me by my wife (primarily a functional builder)
>have been very interesting -
>I feel that a teapot (or whatever) can be as much a clay art form as a
>beautiful still life of the same done in water, acrylic, or oil paints,
>sculpted in wood, printed on a stamp etc .... The old masters did many
>landscapes where the tree did not grow, produce shade, or benefit the
>environment. Is it less a "tree" than a sculpted tree tree that would
>lend shade and beauty outside a window?
>
I agree with Bob that a sculpture in the shape of a teapot is a perfectly
valid work of art, though I don't agree with his implication that a teapot
that can hold tea is less of an "artform" than a sculpture. But I don't
understand what exactly is gained by making a 3-dimensional teapot form so
that it can't hold tea.
Ray
Aldridge Porcelain and Stoneware
http://www.goodpots.com
Ray Aldridge on wed 22 mar 00
At 11:38 AM 3/19/00 EST, Vince wrote:
>----------------------------Original message----------------------------
>> the way I treated the idea, but I still think my basic point is valid. An
>> object that resembles a functional pot in every respect but function
>> becomes a work of conceptual art, and this is a very shallow esthetic sea.
>> In other words, the first time someone made a teapot with a solid spout,
>or
>> a flat pitcher, the concept was exhausted, in esthetic terms. Every flat
>> pitcher thereafter is simply recycling the original idea, to no apparent
>> purpose, in my opinion.
>
>Sorry Ray, but this does not hold water, so to speak (sorry, bad pun). The
>above makes no more sense than to say that once a functional pitcher had
>been made, the idea was exhausted.
Except that you can pour milk from it. The functional pitcher functions, so
that whatever else it has going for it, it is not merely an (empty)
esthetic conceit at its core (not that there's anything wrong with esthetic
conceits, to paraphrase Seinfeld.) There is, I hope we can agree, a
profound difference between utilitarian art and conceptual art. The
functional ware is what it is, and though it is indeed a recycling of the
original pitcher, there is another point to it-- that it can be useful and
beautiful, if not wholly original. The conceptual work of art is mainly an
idea, and though it may be clothed in action, the most important component
is the idea.
A non-functioning teapot form simply
>comments on the aesthetic of the teapot, which certainly encompass an
>inexhaustible range of possbility. From my own point of view, I would
>prefer that the artist go ahead and make the damn thing functional,
Me too, and if I can't see any articulable reason for making the teapot
non-functional, I often can't take it seriously. How does a
non-functioning teapot comment more profoundly on the esthetic of the
teapot than a functioning teapot? I find it to be more likely the other
way around, and besides, you can make tea.
but I
>certainly do not begrudge the sculptor who chooses to reference the teapot
>without concern for utilitarian function.
Nor do I, but she should understand that it's already been done about a
zillion times. Why not find a carcass that isn't so picked-over?
You can't relegate such work to
>the purely conceptual so casually.
It's just my opinion, of course. I understand that I'm making a sweeping
generalization, but this is my usual reaction to objects which "refer" to
other objects, when those other objects are functional pottery. Why hit
the target a glancing blow, when it's so easy to nail it dead center? What
no one has ever been able to explain to me is how a pot can become more
powerful if its function is subtracted from it.
Actually, I recognize exceptions to this rule, though I can't explain them,
and much sculptural clay work appeals to me, even when it "references"
utilitarian pottery in some way. For example, a Coper vase is probably
unsuitable for displaying a bouquet of daisies, but I still like it a lot.
On the other hand, a Coper vase is not a self-conscious reference to more
traditional vase forms-- it stands alone as an object in its own right, so
it is not a work of conceptual art in the sense I'm trying to clarify.
And besides, what's wrong with
>conceptual art, and why is it such a "shallow aesthetic sea?"
There's nothing wrong with conceptual art, but it's wide, not deep.
Because it is dependent on an intellectual artifact rather than a real
world object like a painting or a sculpture, it is uninteresting unless it
is an original concept. I could wrap a local sandbar in plaid flannel and
call it "Homage to Redneck Christo," but I doubt I'd be taken very
seriously, because Christo exhausted the idea. It went stale after one
use, and that's just the nature of conceptual art.
There's a feeling among clay artists (or so I surmise) that because their
art form is sprung from such a long and weighty tradition of making many
similar objects with the same general purpose, that art made of clay is
somehow exempt from the measures we apply to other forms of art. This may
be why potters who've discovered one intriguing nonfunctional form tend to
repeat it long after the joke has worn thin, even when the form was
originally derived from a concept-- or worse, someone else's concept.
If you want
>to stick to the pure definition of "aesthetic" and the assumption that art
>must be beautiful, then you may have no room for conceptual art. I don't
>see the point of limiting the range of possibility to that degree.
Conceptual art is fine, and my view has nothing to do with beauty or its
lack. But in my opinion, conceptual art has to be new, or it rapidly
descends into bathos. After the first dozen or so giant soup cans, I was
ready for something else.
Just my opinion, which is probably worth even less than you paid for it.
And I don't mean to imply that there's anything wrong with conceptual clay.
I liked a lot of Kottler's stuff, for example. But he didn't try to
hybridize traditional pottery and conceptual art by making "Flat Pitcher
#318, with Blue Dots."
Ray
Aldridge Porcelain and Stoneware
http://www.goodpots.com
vince pitelka on thu 23 mar 00
> Except that you can pour milk from it. The functional pitcher functions,
so
> that whatever else it has going for it, it is not merely an (empty)
> esthetic conceit at its core. There is, I hope we can agree, a
> profound difference between utilitarian art and conceptual art.
The fact that you can pour milk from it has absolutely nothing to do with it
in this case, unless you are only interested in utilitarian objects, in
which case this entire discussion is moot. There is a huge difference
between utilitarian and conceptual art, but we are not talking about
conceptual art here. We are talking about the utilitarian and the
aesthetic. If the sculptor chooses to reference the teapot form in an
artwork which addresses the beauty of the teapot, then he has as much to
work with as any potter who is making a utilitarian teapot and happens to
also be concerned with the beauty of his/her forms. To say that artwork
which references the teapot is a "picked-over carcass" unreasonably limits
the visual aesthetic possibilities of the teapot. I can't believe you
really mean that. To say that would necessarily imply that the utilitarian
potter is dealing with a "picked-over carcass" when it comes to the
aesthetics of this particular form, as if the only room for originality is
in utilitarian function, which is, of course, completely absurd.
> How does a
> non-functioning teapot comment more profoundly on the esthetic of the
> teapot than a functioning teapot? I find it to be more likely the other
> way around, and besides, you can make tea.
I never implied in any way that a non-functioning teapot comments any more
profoundly. And the fact that you can make tea with the utilitarian teapot
is, as I said above, irrelevant when it comes to the purely visual,
aesthetic aspects of the teapot. You can take an oil painting off the wall
and serve pizza off it if you want. Does that make it a more worthwhile
object?
> It's just my opinion, of course. I understand that I'm making a sweeping
> generalization, but this is my usual reaction to objects which "refer" to
> other objects, when those other objects are functional pottery. Why hit
> the target a glancing blow, when it's so easy to nail it dead center?
What
> no one has ever been able to explain to me is how a pot can become
< more powerful if its function is subtracted from it.
This is getting a little silly. Your language implies such a profound bias
against any artwork which references utilitarian forms, which demeans the
work of so many leading sculptors and painters of the 20th century. Knowing
what an intelligent human being you are, I cannot believe you really think
that, and must assume you are pursueing this for the sake of arguement
rather than out of genuine conviction.
> There's nothing wrong with conceptual art, but it's wide, not deep.
> Because it is dependent on an intellectual artifact rather than a real
> world object like a painting or a sculpture, it is uninteresting unless it
> is an original concept. I could wrap a local sandbar in plaid flannel and
> call it "Homage to Redneck Christo," but I doubt I'd be taken very
> seriously, because Christo exhausted the idea. It went stale after one
> use, and that's just the nature of conceptual art.
Actually, you would probably be taken very seriously, I cannot see where
your your reference to conceptual art is at all relevant to this discussion.
I am not talking about conceptual art at all.
> But in my opinion, conceptual art has to be new, or it rapidly
> descends into bathos. After the first dozen or so giant soup cans, I was
> ready for something else.
I'll certainly agree with you there, but the same can be said of any artist
who finds a comfortable niche, and proceeds to exhaust it ad nauseum.
More . . . . . . I want more . . . . . .
- Vince
Writing from my hotel room at NCECA, about to go back up to the Clayart
hospitality room to see if the "slide review" croud has thinned out to the
point that I can get one foot in the door.
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
http://www.craftcenter.tntech.edu/
Norman van der Sluys on fri 24 mar 00
What have we here, Vince, a 3d artist talking about the "purely visual aesthetic
aspects of a teapot"?? What about the tactile aesthetic aspects of the teapot?
What about the physical balance and the kinetic harmonies of a piece with the
potential to be held and moved. These are all aspects of the functional teapot
that contribute to the aesthetic whole of the piece - aspects which are lacking
in the non-functional
teapot-on-a-pedestal-do-not-touch-or-the-guard-will-get-you. I speak as a
reformed painter and erstwhile museum guard docent. But even there (the Phillips
Collection in Washington DC great emphasis was placed on making all of the art
presented part of a normal environment. Comfortable domestic furniture was
provided so one could "live with" the paintings for a time. This is as close as
a painting can get to being utilitarian, I think. Much sculpture is made to be
touched and functional pots extend this idea still further, making that
afternoon tea an aesthetic experience in a way that a non-functional piece could
never do. The biggest problem contemporary art faces today is its divorce from
the lives of the people. Not being able to use a teapot just aggravates that
problem.
Norman van der Sluys
> How does a
> non-functioning teapot comment more profoundly on the esthetic of the
> teapot than a functioning teapot? I find it to be more likely the other
> way around, and besides, you can make tea.
I never implied in any way that a non-functioning teapot comments any more
profoundly. And the fact that you can make tea with the utilitarian teapot
is, as I said above, irrelevant when it comes to the purely visual,
aesthetic aspects of the teapot. You can take an oil painting off the wall
and serve pizza off it if you want. Does that make it a more worthwhile
object?
--------------
Percy Toms on fri 24 mar 00
Ray wrote the fateful words,
>Why hit the target a glancing blow, when it's so easy to nail it dead center?
>What no one has ever been able to explain to me is how a pot can become
>more powerful if its function is subtracted from it.
Dead on, this question! The glove, my lords and ladies, is down.
Answers, anyone? I'm looking for some good ones...
Ned
(who confesses he made his first nonfunctional teapot when forgetting to
drill the spoutholes before attaching the spout - an error only noticed after
bisque firing. ... it was a write off... the boss ribbed me for weeks.. .
The masterpiece is long gone... rats! - if only I had thought referentially!
grahamvincent on fri 24 mar 00
I've watched this thread and I have a thought for those unhappy with the
idea of this non-functioning teapot thing; there are other threads running
concerning the fact that rakuware is not generally suitable for food use,
due to the crazing of the finish, the permeability of the fired body and the
toxicity of the glazes. I haven't heard anyone suggest raku is therefore
somehow not worthy for the making of bowls, etc. Is this not the same
thing??
(I only have one teapot, but never use it as I always put teabags straight
in the mug - still enjoy owning it!)
graham.
----- Original Message -----
From: vince pitelka
To:
Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2000 11:14 PM
Subject: Re: non-functional teapots
> ----------------------------Original message----------------------------
> > Except that you can pour milk from it. The functional pitcher functions,
> so
> > that whatever else it has going for it, it is not merely an (empty)
> > esthetic conceit at its core. There is, I hope we can agree, a
> > profound difference between utilitarian art and conceptual art.
>
> The fact that you can pour milk from it has absolutely nothing to do with
it
> in this case, unless you are only interested in utilitarian objects, in
> which case this entire discussion is moot. There is a huge difference
> between utilitarian and conceptual art, but we are not talking about
> conceptual art here. We are talking about the utilitarian and the
> aesthetic. If the sculptor chooses to reference the teapot form in an
> artwork which addresses the beauty of the teapot, then he has as much to
> work with as any potter who is making a utilitarian teapot and happens to
> also be concerned with the beauty of his/her forms. To say that artwork
> which references the teapot is a "picked-over carcass" unreasonably limits
> the visual aesthetic possibilities of the teapot. I can't believe you
> really mean that. To say that would necessarily imply that the
utilitarian
> potter is dealing with a "picked-over carcass" when it comes to the
> aesthetics of this particular form, as if the only room for originality is
> in utilitarian function, which is, of course, completely absurd.
>
> > How does a
> > non-functioning teapot comment more profoundly on the esthetic of the
> > teapot than a functioning teapot? I find it to be more likely the other
> > way around, and besides, you can make tea.
>
> I never implied in any way that a non-functioning teapot comments any more
> profoundly. And the fact that you can make tea with the utilitarian
teapot
> is, as I said above, irrelevant when it comes to the purely visual,
> aesthetic aspects of the teapot. You can take an oil painting off the
wall
> and serve pizza off it if you want. Does that make it a more worthwhile
> object?
>
> > It's just my opinion, of course. I understand that I'm making a
sweeping
> > generalization, but this is my usual reaction to objects which "refer"
to
> > other objects, when those other objects are functional pottery. Why hit
> > the target a glancing blow, when it's so easy to nail it dead center?
> What
> > no one has ever been able to explain to me is how a pot can become
> < more powerful if its function is subtracted from it.
>
> This is getting a little silly. Your language implies such a profound
bias
> against any artwork which references utilitarian forms, which demeans the
> work of so many leading sculptors and painters of the 20th century.
Knowing
> what an intelligent human being you are, I cannot believe you really think
> that, and must assume you are pursueing this for the sake of arguement
> rather than out of genuine conviction.
>
> > There's nothing wrong with conceptual art, but it's wide, not deep.
> > Because it is dependent on an intellectual artifact rather than a real
> > world object like a painting or a sculpture, it is uninteresting unless
it
> > is an original concept. I could wrap a local sandbar in plaid flannel
and
> > call it "Homage to Redneck Christo," but I doubt I'd be taken very
> > seriously, because Christo exhausted the idea. It went stale after one
> > use, and that's just the nature of conceptual art.
>
> Actually, you would probably be taken very seriously, I cannot see where
> your your reference to conceptual art is at all relevant to this
discussion.
> I am not talking about conceptual art at all.
>
> > But in my opinion, conceptual art has to be new, or it rapidly
> > descends into bathos. After the first dozen or so giant soup cans, I
was
> > ready for something else.
>
> I'll certainly agree with you there, but the same can be said of any
artist
> who finds a comfortable niche, and proceeds to exhaust it ad nauseum.
>
> More . . . . . . I want more . . . . . .
> - Vince
>
> Writing from my hotel room at NCECA, about to go back up to the Clayart
> hospitality room to see if the "slide review" croud has thinned out to the
> point that I can get one foot in the door.
>
> 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
> http://www.craftcenter.tntech.edu/
candace vosburg on sat 25 mar 00
Hello,
i have been working on a whole series of non functional teapots. It is not
so much the idea of a teapot, but the social references it calls up for me.
The idea of a handle and a spout, not necesarily one you would have to pour
out of to get full enjoyment of the object. i am not saying one is better
than the other, mearly that hey are two sides of the same coin. Beside there
are justsome things that you cant do and still have them function. (paper
thin walls, delicate attatchments, unease of cleaning ect)
What i want to know is why is it that if an artist makes reference to a
bowl or a platter or even a cup that is nonfunctional it does non throw up
the same flurry of disavowment from functional artists as the teapot form
seems to???
i anyone could answer this for me i would be most grateful.
candace vosburg
>From: Percy Toms
>Reply-To: Ceramic Arts Discussion List
>To: CLAYART@LSV.UKY.EDU
>Subject: Re: non-functional teapots
>Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2000 16:16:01 EST
>
>----------------------------Original message----------------------------
>
>Ray wrote the fateful words,
>
> >Why hit the target a glancing blow, when it's so easy to nail it dead
>center?
> >What no one has ever been able to explain to me is how a pot can become
> >more powerful if its function is subtracted from it.
>
>
>Dead on, this question! The glove, my lords and ladies, is down.
>
>Answers, anyone? I'm looking for some good ones...
>
>Ned
>(who confesses he made his first nonfunctional teapot when forgetting to
>drill the spoutholes before attaching the spout - an error only noticed
>after
>bisque firing. ... it was a write off... the boss ribbed me for weeks..
>.
>The masterpiece is long gone... rats! - if only I had thought
>referentially!
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
Norman van der Sluys on sat 25 mar 00
Just because an item is not suitable for food use does not mean it is
non-functional. I use raku bowls to hold a variety of things, from a collection
of gourds to pocket change. I know some artists are offended by the idea that
their piece is being used in a mundane way, but the ultimate aesthetic
experience for me is to make an expressive object a part of my life - to use it!
Norman van der Sluys
grahamvincent wrote:
> ----------------------------Original message----------------------------
> I've watched this thread and I have a thought for those unhappy with the
> idea of this non-functioning teapot thing; there are other threads running
> concerning the fact that rakuware is not generally suitable for food use,
> due to the crazing of the finish, the permeability of the fired body and the
> toxicity of the glazes. I haven't heard anyone suggest raku is therefore
> somehow not worthy for the making of bowls, etc. Is this not the same
> thing??
>
> (I only have one teapot, but never use it as I always put teabags straight
> in the mug - still enjoy owning it!)
>
> graham.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: vince pitelka
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2000 11:14 PM
> Subject: Re: non-functional teapots
>
> > ----------------------------Original message----------------------------
> > > Except that you can pour milk from it. The functional pitcher functions,
> > so
> > > that whatever else it has going for it, it is not merely an (empty)
> > > esthetic conceit at its core. There is, I hope we can agree, a
> > > profound difference between utilitarian art and conceptual art.
> >
> > The fact that you can pour milk from it has absolutely nothing to do with
> it
> > in this case, unless you are only interested in utilitarian objects, in
> > which case this entire discussion is moot. There is a huge difference
> > between utilitarian and conceptual art, but we are not talking about
> > conceptual art here. We are talking about the utilitarian and the
> > aesthetic. If the sculptor chooses to reference the teapot form in an
> > artwork which addresses the beauty of the teapot, then he has as much to
> > work with as any potter who is making a utilitarian teapot and happens to
> > also be concerned with the beauty of his/her forms. To say that artwork
> > which references the teapot is a "picked-over carcass" unreasonably limits
> > the visual aesthetic possibilities of the teapot. I can't believe you
> > really mean that. To say that would necessarily imply that the
> utilitarian
> > potter is dealing with a "picked-over carcass" when it comes to the
> > aesthetics of this particular form, as if the only room for originality is
> > in utilitarian function, which is, of course, completely absurd.
> >
> > > How does a
> > > non-functioning teapot comment more profoundly on the esthetic of the
> > > teapot than a functioning teapot? I find it to be more likely the other
> > > way around, and besides, you can make tea.
> >
> > I never implied in any way that a non-functioning teapot comments any more
> > profoundly. And the fact that you can make tea with the utilitarian
> teapot
> > is, as I said above, irrelevant when it comes to the purely visual,
> > aesthetic aspects of the teapot. You can take an oil painting off the
> wall
> > and serve pizza off it if you want. Does that make it a more worthwhile
> > object?
> >
> > > It's just my opinion, of course. I understand that I'm making a
> sweeping
> > > generalization, but this is my usual reaction to objects which "refer"
> to
> > > other objects, when those other objects are functional pottery. Why hit
> > > the target a glancing blow, when it's so easy to nail it dead center?
> > What
> > > no one has ever been able to explain to me is how a pot can become
> > < more powerful if its function is subtracted from it.
> >
> > This is getting a little silly. Your language implies such a profound
> bias
> > against any artwork which references utilitarian forms, which demeans the
> > work of so many leading sculptors and painters of the 20th century.
> Knowing
> > what an intelligent human being you are, I cannot believe you really think
> > that, and must assume you are pursueing this for the sake of arguement
> > rather than out of genuine conviction.
> >
> > > There's nothing wrong with conceptual art, but it's wide, not deep.
> > > Because it is dependent on an intellectual artifact rather than a real
> > > world object like a painting or a sculpture, it is uninteresting unless
> it
> > > is an original concept. I could wrap a local sandbar in plaid flannel
> and
> > > call it "Homage to Redneck Christo," but I doubt I'd be taken very
> > > seriously, because Christo exhausted the idea. It went stale after one
> > > use, and that's just the nature of conceptual art.
> >
> > Actually, you would probably be taken very seriously, I cannot see where
> > your your reference to conceptual art is at all relevant to this
> discussion.
> > I am not talking about conceptual art at all.
> >
> > > But in my opinion, conceptual art has to be new, or it rapidly
> > > descends into bathos. After the first dozen or so giant soup cans, I
> was
> > > ready for something else.
> >
> > I'll certainly agree with you there, but the same can be said of any
> artist
> > who finds a comfortable niche, and proceeds to exhaust it ad nauseum.
> >
> > More . . . . . . I want more . . . . . .
> > - Vince
> >
> > Writing from my hotel room at NCECA, about to go back up to the Clayart
> > hospitality room to see if the "slide review" croud has thinned out to the
> > point that I can get one foot in the door.
> >
> > 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
> > http://www.craftcenter.tntech.edu/
Randall Moody on sat 25 mar 00
I too have watched this thread with interest. I agree with your point about
the rakuware. But Japanese rakuware was meant to be used. I make handbuilt
trompe loiel teapots. Many would consider them non-functional but all could
be used if you really (and I mean REALLY) wanted to. For a long time I
wondered why I went to all of the trouble of making the spout hole and lid
but then I realized that without it the integrity of the teapot was lost. My
pots may not pour so nicely, and the earthenware I use may be a bit too
porous but if the spout does not allow water to come out and the lid does
not allow water to go in then I have not made a teapot. I have made an
object that has a resemblance to a teapot.
> ----------------------------Original message----------------------------
> I've watched this thread and I have a thought for those unhappy with the
> idea of this non-functioning teapot thing; there are other threads running
> concerning the fact that rakuware is not generally suitable for food use,
> due to the crazing of the finish, the permeability of the fired body and
the
> toxicity of the glazes. I haven't heard anyone suggest raku is therefore
> somehow not worthy for the making of bowls, etc. Is this not the same
> thing??
>
> (I only have one teapot, but never use it as I always put teabags straight
> in the mug - still enjoy owning it!)
>
Lee Love on sat 25 mar 00
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2000 16:16:01 EST
From: Percy Toms
Subject: Re: non-functional teapots
----------------------------Original message----------------------------
Ray wrote the fateful words,
>>Why hit the target a glancing blow, when it's so easy to nail it dead
center?
>>What no one has ever been able to explain to me is how a pot can become
>>more powerful if its function is subtracted from it.
And Ned Ludd reiterated:
>Dead on, this question! The glove, my lords and ladies, is down.
>Answers, anyone? I'm looking for some good ones...
Percy & Ray,
I think a fundimental reason for someone making them is exactly
to inspire the type of reaction you and Ray are having toward them.
Basically, the non-functional tea pot makes us think about what a tea pot
really is. We go from your basic pot, to your pot about pots to the
non-pot pot. I have no desire to make one, but I can probably learn from
one well made.
Actually, what is the difference between a non-functional tea
pot and one that is too expensive to use & just sits on the mantle or in a
glass case? Wouldn't you say affordable price is a part of function too?
Or, how about that sculptural/architectural tea pot, that if filled with
tea, could only be lifted by Arnold Scwartzenegger? Is it a functional tea
pot, even though it can hold tea, but has to be poured by a crane? See the
questions the non-functional tea pot raises? :^)
--
Lee Love
2858-2-2 , Nanai
Mashiko-machi
Tochigi-ken
321-4106
JAPAN
Ikiru@kami.com
Helen Bates on sun 26 mar 00
And I have several teapots, and sometimes use them, but for the moment,
I'm not drinking so much tea... filtered coffee instead. But, I love
teapots, and love anything that "interests" me, functional or not!
Original message:====================================================
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2000 16:21:33 EST
From: grahamvincent
Subject: Re: non-functional teapots
----------------------------Original message----------------------------
I've watched this thread and I have a thought for those unhappy with the
idea of this non-functioning teapot thing; there are other threads
running
concerning the fact that rakuware is not generally suitable for food
use,
due to the crazing of the finish, the permeability of the fired body and
the
toxicity of the glazes. I haven't heard anyone suggest raku is therefore
somehow not worthy for the making of bowls, etc. Is this not the same
thing??
(I only have one teapot, but never use it as I always put teabags
straight
in the mug - still enjoy owning it!)
graham.
===================================================================
Helen
--
=========================================================
Helen Bates
mailto:nell@reach.net
=========================================================
Kathryn L Farmer on sun 26 mar 00
:-) Exactly. The function of the beauty of the nonfunctional teapot is to
inspire appreciation of the beauty and function of the functional teapot.
Right?
Kathryn
> Percy & Ray,
>
> I think a fundimental reason for someone making them is
exactly
> to inspire the type of reaction you and Ray are having toward them.
> Basically, the non-functional tea pot makes us think about what a tea pot
> really is...
Kathryn L Farmer on sun 26 mar 00
Hmmm. Now that's a good question! Do we hold the teapot sacred? Though in
actuality a "nonfunctional" bowl or platter could function to hold things,
but just not be food safe... so maybe it isn't truly nonfunctional.
All of this reminds me of the story of the aging ship. Periodically over
time the carpenter replace the boards and gear as they wore. Board by board
it was freshened to keep it as good as new. As he worked, he set aside the
old boards. Sixty years later he looked at the stack of old boards and
decided to build a ship with them. Which ship is the original ship?
Kathryn
----- Original Message -----
From: "candace vosburg"
To:
Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2000 11:29 PM
Subject: Re: non-functional teapots
> ----------------------------Original message----------------------------
> Hello,
> i have been working on a whole series of non functional teapots. It is not
> so much the idea of a teapot, but the social references it calls up for
me.
> The idea of a handle and a spout, not necesarily one you would have to
pour
> out of to get full enjoyment of the object. i am not saying one is better
> than the other, mearly that hey are two sides of the same coin. Beside
there
> are justsome things that you cant do and still have them function. (paper
> thin walls, delicate attatchments, unease of cleaning ect)
> What i want to know is why is it that if an artist makes reference to a
> bowl or a platter or even a cup that is nonfunctional it does non throw up
> the same flurry of disavowment from functional artists as the teapot form
> seems to???
>
> i anyone could answer this for me i would be most grateful.
>
> candace vosburg
>
>
> >From: Percy Toms
> >Reply-To: Ceramic Arts Discussion List
> >To: CLAYART@LSV.UKY.EDU
> >Subject: Re: non-functional teapots
> >Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2000 16:16:01 EST
> >
> >----------------------------Original message----------------------------
> >
> >Ray wrote the fateful words,
> >
> > >Why hit the target a glancing blow, when it's so easy to nail it dead
> >center?
> > >What no one has ever been able to explain to me is how a pot can become
> > >more powerful if its function is subtracted from it.
> >
> >
> >Dead on, this question! The glove, my lords and ladies, is down.
> >
> >Answers, anyone? I'm looking for some good ones...
> >
> >Ned
> >(who confesses he made his first nonfunctional teapot when forgetting to
> >drill the spoutholes before attaching the spout - an error only noticed
> >after
> >bisque firing. ... it was a write off... the boss ribbed me for weeks..
> >.
> >The masterpiece is long gone... rats! - if only I had thought
> >referentially!
>
> ______________________________________________________
> Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
Don Jones on sun 26 mar 00
Dear group,
There is an interesting article on Betty Woodman in "American Craft" that
addresses this subject.
Don Jones
http://www.highfiber.com/~claysky
----------
>From: Lee Love
>To: CLAYART@LSV.UKY.EDU
>Subject: Re: non-functional teapots
>Date: Sat, Mar 25, 2000, 9:39 PM
>
>----------------------------Original message----------------------------
>Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2000 16:16:01 EST
>From: Percy Toms
>Subject: Re: non-functional teapots
>
>----------------------------Original message----------------------------
>
>Ray wrote the fateful words,
>
>>>Why hit the target a glancing blow, when it's so easy to nail it dead
>center?
>>>What no one has ever been able to explain to me is how a pot can become
>>>more powerful if its function is subtracted from it.
>
>And Ned Ludd reiterated:
>
>>Dead on, this question! The glove, my lords and ladies, is down.
>>Answers, anyone? I'm looking for some good ones...
>
>Percy & Ray,
>
> I think a fundimental reason for someone making them is exactly
>to inspire the type of reaction you and Ray are having toward them.
>Basically, the non-functional tea pot makes us think about what a tea pot
>really is. We go from your basic pot, to your pot about pots to the
>non-pot pot. I have no desire to make one, but I can probably learn from
>one well made.
>
> Actually, what is the difference between a non-functional tea
>pot and one that is too expensive to use & just sits on the mantle or in a
>glass case? Wouldn't you say affordable price is a part of function too?
>Or, how about that sculptural/architectural tea pot, that if filled with
>tea, could only be lifted by Arnold Scwartzenegger? Is it a functional tea
>pot, even though it can hold tea, but has to be poured by a crane? See the
>questions the non-functional tea pot raises? :^)
>
>--
>Lee Love
>2858-2-2 , Nanai
>Mashiko-machi
>Tochigi-ken
>321-4106
>JAPAN
>
> Ikiru@kami.com
>
elizabeth priddy on sun 26 mar 00
I think I know one reason
> What i want to know is why is it that if an artist makes reference to a
>bowl or a platter or even a cup that is nonfunctional it does non throw up
>the same flurry of disavowment from functional artists as the teapot form
>seems to???
Because it is a standard test of the skills of
a potter to make a good teapot that pours well,
doesn't shatter when hot, cleans up well and
will keep a pot of tea hot.
The bowl and plate etc. are not the test that
one usually picks. To make "teapots" willy
nilly with no regard to functionality is more
bothersome that a bad bowl. Any idiot can make
a bad bowl, it takes a very skilled idiot to
make a bad teapot, and an extremely skilled
potter to make a good teapot.
I am not saying that the makers of fake tea pots
are idiots, that was a play on phrases...
---
Elizabeth Priddy
email: epriddy@usa.net
http://www.angelfire.com/nc/clayworkshop
Clay: 12,000 yrs and still fresh!
On Sat, 25 Mar 2000 23:29:02 candace vosburg wrote:
>----------------------------Original message----------------------------
>Hello,
>i have been working on a whole series of non functional teapots. It is not
>so much the idea of a teapot, but the social references it calls up for me.
>The idea of a handle and a spout, not necesarily one you would have to pour
>out of to get full enjoyment of the object. i am not saying one is better
>than the other, mearly that hey are two sides of the same coin. Beside there
>are justsome things that you cant do and still have them function. (paper
>thin walls, delicate attatchments, unease of cleaning ect)
> What i want to know is why is it that if an artist makes reference to a
>bowl or a platter or even a cup that is nonfunctional it does non throw up
>the same flurry of disavowment from functional artists as the teapot form
>seems to???
>
>i anyone could answer this for me i would be most grateful.
>
>candace vosburg
>
>
>>From: Percy Toms
>>Reply-To: Ceramic Arts Discussion List
>>To: CLAYART@LSV.UKY.EDU
>>Subject: Re: non-functional teapots
>>Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2000 16:16:01 EST
>>
>>----------------------------Original message----------------------------
>>
>>Ray wrote the fateful words,
>>
>> >Why hit the target a glancing blow, when it's so easy to nail it dead
>>center?
>> >What no one has ever been able to explain to me is how a pot can become
>> >more powerful if its function is subtracted from it.
>>
>>
>>Dead on, this question! The glove, my lords and ladies, is down.
>>
>>Answers, anyone? I'm looking for some good ones...
>>
>>Ned
>>(who confesses he made his first nonfunctional teapot when forgetting to
>>drill the spoutholes before attaching the spout - an error only noticed
>>after
>>bisque firing. ... it was a write off... the boss ribbed me for weeks..
>>.
>>The masterpiece is long gone... rats! - if only I had thought
>>referentially!
>
>______________________________________________________
>Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
>
--== Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ==--
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Janet Kaiser on mon 27 mar 00
This thread all boils down to one simple thing:
the split is between those who laud functionality combined with beauty (i.e.
craftspeople) and those who only aim to make a (beautiful or otherwise)
statement (i.e. artists).
It is therefore a variation on the old theme of art vs. craft...
If you can use it, then it is craft.
If you cannot use it, it is art.
Simple.
I exhibit both. I have seen everything from exquisite and beautifully made
to grotesque and badly made. The functionality of any pot is actually just
another design feature... I do not have a problem with it being present or
not. But I do have a problem with pompous and pretentious rationalisation of
its non-presence!
The very number of non-functional tea pots and the odd coffee pot (but not,
it is noticed, casseroles, cups, plates, vases, watering cans, etc.) which
are made by hundreds of ceramic artists around the world, are just another
symptom of a decadent society.
We all have one, two or any number of functional tea pots. Some of us own
them but never use them in the day of teabags and instant tea. We therefore
need to have a new, different alibi for acquiring the fourth, fifth, or
hundredth... What a wonderful get-out non-functionality therefore is. No
wife/husband/partner frowning at yet another teapot to clutter the shelves,
because we can claim it is ART and put it on the mantle or in a show case.
Art is the big excuse for excess, because it is invincibly on a higher plain
and cannot be questioned.
Why these artists should still use clay is the most interesting question to
me. If I were an artist exploring an "aspect of cultural cross reference
blah-blah-blah", my choice would be to take the concept to its logical
conclusion. My "teapot" would have to be made of plaster, material, fur,
paper or absolutely any other material which removes the functionality
completely. I would also remove the longevity. No archaeologist of 3000 AD
should dig up my contribution to the culture of the 21st century, only to
decide it could only be some sort of cult object.
I also understand the resentment of functional potters. Their medium has
been high-jacked and reduced to the mere decorative and I think that is the
underlying problem. Form and functionality engage most of their attention
and they cannot imagine the removal of a major part of the raison d'jtre.
Funky, modern, quirky, funny, kitsch, thought-provoking... the whole gamut
of artistic expression, is only acceptable if the basic function remains
intact. Remove function and the integrity has been minimised or disregarded
in the quest for today's holy grail: originality.
My favourite "arty" teapots are those which look non-functional, but
actually work beautifully. If pressed for a historical or cultural
reference, I suppose they are in the tradition of the puzzle jug. The
ultimate marriage between contemporary art and craft! Wonderful!
Janet Kaiser
The Chapel of Art, Criccieth LL52 0EA, GB-Wales
Home of The International Potters Path
TEL: (01766) 523570
WEB: http://www.the-coa.org.uk
EMAIL: postbox@the-coa.org.uk
> ----------------------------Original message----------------------------
>
> Ray wrote the fateful words,
>
> >>Why hit the target a glancing blow, when it's so easy to nail it dead
center?
> >>What no one has ever been able to explain to me is how a pot can become
> >>more powerful if its function is subtracted from it.
>
> And Ned Ludd reiterated:
>
> >Dead on, this question! The glove, my lords and ladies, is down.
> >Answers, anyone? I'm looking for some good ones...
>
> The Lee Love said:
>
> I think a fundimental reason for someone making them is
exactly
> to inspire the type of reaction you and Ray are having toward them.
> Basically, the non-functional tea pot makes us think about what a tea pot
> really is. We go from your basic pot, to your pot about pots to the
> non-pot pot. I have no desire to make one, but I can probably learn from
> one well made.
iandol on mon 27 mar 00
------------------
Extract =3E (I only have one teapot, but never use it as I always put =
teabags
straight in the mug - still enjoy owning it=21)=3E
Shame on you.
Regardless of the intent of the maker, be it strictly utilitarian or =
audaciously
exotic, every teapot functions on the level of social ritual. This applies =
even
to those which are so non functional as to have closed strainers, stopped =
spouts
or sealed lids.
By not using your teapot you deny to yourself that social ritual.
I will refrain from saying things about bio-degradability of tea bags=21
Ivor.
Teres Whitney on mon 27 mar 00
Another article in American Style "21st Century teapots" Does not address
issue directly but shows functional as well as non-functional pots.
What about mugs that don't function is that the same as tea pots that don't
function?
Teres-Dallas
-----Original Message-----
From: Don Jones
To: CLAYART@LSV.UKY.EDU
Date: Sunday, March 26, 2000 5:22 PM
Subject: Re: non-functional teapots
>----------------------------Original message----------------------------
>Dear group,
>There is an interesting article on Betty Woodman in "American Craft" that
>addresses this subject.
>
>Don Jones
>http://www.highfiber.com/~claysky
>
>----------
>>From: Lee Love
>>To: CLAYART@LSV.UKY.EDU
>>Subject: Re: non-functional teapots
>>Date: Sat, Mar 25, 2000, 9:39 PM
>>
>
>>----------------------------Original message----------------------------
>>Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2000 16:16:01 EST
>>From: Percy Toms
>>Subject: Re: non-functional teapots
>>
>>----------------------------Original message----------------------------
>>
>>Ray wrote the fateful words,
>>
>>>>Why hit the target a glancing blow, when it's so easy to nail it dead
>>center?
>>>>What no one has ever been able to explain to me is how a pot can become
>>>>more powerful if its function is subtracted from it.
>>
>>And Ned Ludd reiterated:
>>
>>>Dead on, this question! The glove, my lords and ladies, is down.
>>>Answers, anyone? I'm looking for some good ones...
>>
>>Percy & Ray,
>>
>> I think a fundimental reason for someone making them is
exactly
>>to inspire the type of reaction you and Ray are having toward them.
>>Basically, the non-functional tea pot makes us think about what a tea pot
>>really is. We go from your basic pot, to your pot about pots to the
>>non-pot pot. I have no desire to make one, but I can probably learn from
>>one well made.
>>
>> Actually, what is the difference between a non-functional tea
>>pot and one that is too expensive to use & just sits on the mantle or in a
>>glass case? Wouldn't you say affordable price is a part of function
too?
>>Or, how about that sculptural/architectural tea pot, that if filled with
>>tea, could only be lifted by Arnold Scwartzenegger? Is it a functional
tea
>>pot, even though it can hold tea, but has to be poured by a crane? See
the
>>questions the non-functional tea pot raises? :^)
>>
>>--
>>Lee Love
>>2858-2-2 , Nanai
>>Mashiko-machi
>>Tochigi-ken
>>321-4106
>>JAPAN
>>
>> Ikiru@kami.com
>>
>
ferenc jakab on mon 27 mar 00
I posted a message on this thread earlier, perhaps it was a little terse and
the moderators turfed it. This is what I meant to say. The power of a
non-functional utilitarian object is in that paradox, i.e non functional,
utilitarian. A paradox always begs questions. I enjoy my collection of
teapots both functional and non-functional.
Feri.
Jim Brooks on mon 27 mar 00
I have several teapots made by friends and a couple of mine.. I like them
all.. i also have one that is not functional.. but it sparks the
imagination..brightens the day with its whimsy. and makes my heart smile.!
Somehow..that is more important to me than it's being functional......
And. i bet all of us would love to have a Lana Wilson teapot....whether it
works or not!! I know i would..and would probably admire it greatly as i
had my coffee.. Jim
Ray Aldridge on mon 27 mar 00
At 06:14 PM 3/23/00 EST, you wrote:
>----------------------------Original message----------------------------
>> Except that you can pour milk from it. The functional pitcher functions,
>so
>> that whatever else it has going for it, it is not merely an (empty)
>> esthetic conceit at its core. There is, I hope we can agree, a
>> profound difference between utilitarian art and conceptual art.
>
>The fact that you can pour milk from it has absolutely nothing to do with it
>in this case, unless you are only interested in utilitarian objects, in
>which case this entire discussion is moot. There is a huge difference
>between utilitarian and conceptual art, but we are not talking about
>conceptual art here. We are talking about the utilitarian and the
>aesthetic. If the sculptor chooses to reference the teapot form in an
>artwork which addresses the beauty of the teapot, then he has as much to
>work with as any potter who is making a utilitarian teapot and happens to
>also be concerned with the beauty of his/her forms. To say that artwork
>which references the teapot is a "picked-over carcass" unreasonably limits
>the visual aesthetic possibilities of the teapot. I can't believe you
>really mean that. To say that would necessarily imply that the utilitarian
>potter is dealing with a "picked-over carcass" when it comes to the
>aesthetics of this particular form, as if the only room for originality is
>in utilitarian function, which is, of course, completely absurd.
Well, it is. But the utilitarian object must accept some constraints on
its originality because it must function. It can never be entirely free of
that constraint, and in this sense, its originality is limited to a gloss
on the basic idea of a covered container that pours. It cannot be original
in any basic sense. In the same way, an object which is primarily
conceptual ought to be judged on the strength of its originality, since
that's its raison d'etre. If it fails in that respect, it is a failure,
however intriguing its secondary virtues, like form, color, etc., just as a
functional teapot is a failure if it doesn't pour, however nice it might be
in other respects. I hope this is clearer, though we're trying to nail
jello to a wall when we discuss criticism.
I think that possibly our disagreement comes principally in our definition,
which is a common source of rhetorical friction. I regard the non-pouring
teapot as a work of conceptual art, because the idea of non-function is
evidently important enough to the artist to make it a primary feature of
the work. If it weren't important, why not make it function? To imagine
an example, what if we looked at a gorgeous clay object that resembled,
say, a sea fan with a spout. If while I was admiring it, the maker came up
to us and said, "you know, you can make tea in it," I would be even more
impressed, and not less so. So the decision to subtract function from an
object that refers directly to functional clay should not be lightly
undertaken-- if that decision is made, it should be for a good reason. The
only good reason that occurs to me is that the maker wants to make some
sort of comment with her work *about* function or its absence, and that to
me moves the piece into the arena of conceptual art. I don't generally
think well a maker who just doesn't care if the piece works or not-- if
that's the case, sculpt a dog, not a teapot.
So anyway, if you don't regard a nonfunctioning teapot as conceptual art,
then everything you say is true, in your terms. Of course, as I say below,
I recognize many exceptions to my biases. For example, a pitfired teapot
might be an admirable object, even if you can't make tea in it. But in
this case, the maker has a valid reason for disregarding function-- the
limitations of his material and processes. He can't reasonably make a
pitfired teapot that functions, so I can look at it a sculptural object and
not a conceptual one.
It occurs to me that we are debating a larger subject than I originally had
in mind. I was primarily expressing my lack of respect for a fairly narrow
range of objects-- those that directly reference utilitarian objects but
which self-consciously subtract utility, often for such unadmirable reasons
as: "Critics won't take me seriously if I make real teapots."
>
>> How does a
>> non-functioning teapot comment more profoundly on the esthetic of the
>> teapot than a functioning teapot? I find it to be more likely the other
>> way around, and besides, you can make tea.
>
>I never implied in any way that a non-functioning teapot comments any more
>profoundly. And the fact that you can make tea with the utilitarian teapot
>is, as I said above, irrelevant when it comes to the purely visual,
>aesthetic aspects of the teapot. You can take an oil painting off the wall
>and serve pizza off it if you want. Does that make it a more worthwhile
>object?
I can't bring myself to reduce a work of art, especially a 3-dimensional
work that references functional work, to nothing more than the purely
visual aspect of the work. Surely there's more to it than that. If that's
all we were concerned about, we'd be painters. (Here we could get into a
very interesting debate about whether we'd rather have a Brueghel painting
of a peasant tankard, or the tankard itself. We'd have to agree to pretend
that they would sell for the same price.)
>
>> It's just my opinion, of course. I understand that I'm making a sweeping
>> generalization, but this is my usual reaction to objects which "refer" to
>> other objects, when those other objects are functional pottery. Why hit
>> the target a glancing blow, when it's so easy to nail it dead center?
>What
>> no one has ever been able to explain to me is how a pot can become
>< more powerful if its function is subtracted from it.
>
>This is getting a little silly. Your language implies such a profound bias
>against any artwork which references utilitarian forms, which demeans the
>work of so many leading sculptors and painters of the 20th century. Knowing
>what an intelligent human being you are, I cannot believe you really think
>that, and must assume you are pursueing this for the sake of arguement
>rather than out of genuine conviction.
I'm sure you're at least partly right, because as I say, I recognize many
exceptions to this bias-- and these are works for the most part that appeal
to me on other than conceptual grounds, like Coper's vases or Erik
Gronborg's teapots. But on the other hand, I'm a person with strong and
unconventional opinions about everything, including art, and I see many of
these painters and sculptors as ephemeral, however critically acclaimed. I
think it's okay to say "I don't like that." How does this "demean"
anyone's work? We can't all like everything; it would make the whole idea
of art criticism pointless. I think there's a tendency among intelligent
and knowledgeable artists to be critically all-accepting, perhaps in the
perfectly valid sense that we can learn from everything, even things we
don't like. But while I believe that artists should be free to make
anything they want to make, as long as no unwilling person gets badly hurt,
I also think we should all be free to have our own reactions to that work,
positive or negative. Does it make me a bad, or intolerant, or
unintelligent person if I find many of the major art figures of the 20th
century to be overrated? I think it makes me realistic. Remember that
most of us don't even know the names of the major art figures of the 17th
century-- we only know the names of that very small minority whose work
proved durable. The 20th century will be no different, though it's hard
for us, who are embedded in that temporal matrix, to understand that on any
basic level. It's our world, it's all we know. (But remember, I found the
Vigin Mary with elephant dung to be an interesting painting.)
It's through this sort of critical thinking (and argumentation) that we
come to understand why we feel as we do, and are able to take our critical
faculties past the lowest common denominator of "I know what I like." I do
this too, like everyone else, but I'm unwilling to publicly say "I like
this, or I don't like that," unless I can evolve some sort of rationale to
explain why I feel that way. Thus the natter, however silly it may sound.
>
>> There's nothing wrong with conceptual art, but it's wide, not deep.
>> Because it is dependent on an intellectual artifact rather than a real
>> world object like a painting or a sculpture, it is uninteresting unless it
>> is an original concept. I could wrap a local sandbar in plaid flannel and
>> call it "Homage to Redneck Christo," but I doubt I'd be taken very
>> seriously, because Christo exhausted the idea. It went stale after one
>> use, and that's just the nature of conceptual art.
>
>Actually, you would probably be taken very seriously,
What a horrid idea, Vince. You see, this is why I keep up my dues with the
The Loyal Order of Iconoclasts, Local 513.
I cannot see where
>your your reference to conceptual art is at all relevant to this discussion.
>I am not talking about conceptual art at all.
Definitions, I guess.
>
>> But in my opinion, conceptual art has to be new, or it rapidly
>> descends into bathos. After the first dozen or so giant soup cans, I was
>> ready for something else.
>
>I'll certainly agree with you there, but the same can be said of any artist
>who finds a comfortable niche, and proceeds to exhaust it ad nauseum.
>
>More . . . . . . I want more . . . . . .
>- Vince
Vince, I can't tell you how much I enjoy this sort of thing. It's so
pleasant to have an intelligent and responsive correspondent, one who isn't
afraid to be definite, and who doesn't take personal offense at
disagreement. As I sit at my wheel making my completely functional and not
terribly original little pots, I think about these things and smile. It's
good to feel the brain cells working (the few I have left after my life of
unrestrained dissipation.)
Ray
Aldridge Porcelain and Stoneware
http://www.goodpots.com
Dwiggins, Sandra (NCI) on tue 28 mar 00
Is there a difference between functional and utilitarian? And...what is it?
Sandy
-----Original Message-----
From: Ray Aldridge [SMTP:pbwriter@fwb.gulf.net]
Sent: Monday, March 27, 2000 3:19 PM
To: CLAYART@LSV.UKY.EDU
Subject: Re: non-functional teapots
----------------------------Original message----------------------------
At 06:14 PM 3/23/00 EST, you wrote:
>----------------------------Original message----------------------------
>> Except that you can pour milk from it. The functional pitcher functions,
>so
>> that whatever else it has going for it, it is not merely an (empty)
>> esthetic conceit at its core. There is, I hope we can agree, a
>> profound difference between utilitarian art and conceptual art.
>
>The fact that you can pour milk from it has absolutely nothing to do with it
>in this case, unless you are only interested in utilitarian objects, in
>which case this entire discussion is moot. There is a huge difference
>between utilitarian and conceptual art, but we are not talking about
>conceptual art here. We are talking about the utilitarian and the
>aesthetic. If the sculptor chooses to reference the teapot form in an
>artwork which addresses the beauty of the teapot, then he has as much to
>work with as any potter who is making a utilitarian teapot and happens to
>also be concerned with the beauty of his/her forms. To say that artwork
>which references the teapot is a "picked-over carcass" unreasonably limits
>the visual aesthetic possibilities of the teapot. I can't believe you
>really mean that. To say that would necessarily imply that the utilitarian
>potter is dealing with a "picked-over carcass" when it comes to the
>aesthetics of this particular form, as if the only room for originality is
>in utilitarian function, which is, of course, completely absurd.
Well, it is. But the utilitarian object must accept some constraints on
its originality because it must function. It can never be entirely free of
that constraint, and in this sense, its originality is limited to a gloss
on the basic idea of a covered container that pours. It cannot be original
in any basic sense. In the same way, an object which is primarily
conceptual ought to be judged on the strength of its originality, since
that's its raison d'etre. If it fails in that respect, it is a failure,
however intriguing its secondary virtues, like form, color, etc., just as a
functional teapot is a failure if it doesn't pour, however nice it might be
in other respects. I hope this is clearer, though we're trying to nail
jello to a wall when we discuss criticism.
I think that possibly our disagreement comes principally in our definition,
which is a common source of rhetorical friction. I regard the non-pouring
teapot as a work of conceptual art, because the idea of non-function is
evidently important enough to the artist to make it a primary feature of
the work. If it weren't important, why not make it function? To imagine
an example, what if we looked at a gorgeous clay object that resembled,
say, a sea fan with a spout. If while I was admiring it, the maker came up
to us and said, "you know, you can make tea in it," I would be even more
impressed, and not less so. So the decision to subtract function from an
object that refers directly to functional clay should not be lightly
undertaken-- if that decision is made, it should be for a good reason. The
only good reason that occurs to me is that the maker wants to make some
sort of comment with her work *about* function or its absence, and that to
me moves the piece into the arena of conceptual art. I don't generally
think well a maker who just doesn't care if the piece works or not-- if
that's the case, sculpt a dog, not a teapot.
So anyway, if you don't regard a nonfunctioning teapot as conceptual art,
then everything you say is true, in your terms. Of course, as I say below,
I recognize many exceptions to my biases. For example, a pitfired teapot
might be an admirable object, even if you can't make tea in it. But in
this case, the maker has a valid reason for disregarding function-- the
limitations of his material and processes. He can't reasonably make a
pitfired teapot that functions, so I can look at it a sculptural object and
not a conceptual one.
It occurs to me that we are debating a larger subject than I originally had
in mind. I was primarily expressing my lack of respect for a fairly narrow
range of objects-- those that directly reference utilitarian objects but
which self-consciously subtract utility, often for such unadmirable reasons
as: "Critics won't take me seriously if I make real teapots."
>
>> How does a
>> non-functioning teapot comment more profoundly on the esthetic of the
>> teapot than a functioning teapot? I find it to be more likely the other
>> way around, and besides, you can make tea.
>
>I never implied in any way that a non-functioning teapot comments any more
>profoundly. And the fact that you can make tea with the utilitarian teapot
>is, as I said above, irrelevant when it comes to the purely visual,
>aesthetic aspects of the teapot. You can take an oil painting off the wall
>and serve pizza off it if you want. Does that make it a more worthwhile
>object?
I can't bring myself to reduce a work of art, especially a 3-dimensional
work that references functional work, to nothing more than the purely
visual aspect of the work. Surely there's more to it than that. If that's
all we were concerned about, we'd be painters. (Here we could get into a
very interesting debate about whether we'd rather have a Brueghel painting
of a peasant tankard, or the tankard itself. We'd have to agree to pretend
that they would sell for the same price.)
>
>> It's just my opinion, of course. I understand that I'm making a sweeping
>> generalization, but this is my usual reaction to objects which "refer" to
>> other objects, when those other objects are functional pottery. Why hit
>> the target a glancing blow, when it's so easy to nail it dead center?
>What
>> no one has ever been able to explain to me is how a pot can become
>< more powerful if its function is subtracted from it.
>
>This is getting a little silly. Your language implies such a profound bias
>against any artwork which references utilitarian forms, which demeans the
>work of so many leading sculptors and painters of the 20th century. Knowing
>what an intelligent human being you are, I cannot believe you really think
>that, and must assume you are pursueing this for the sake of arguement
>rather than out of genuine conviction.
I'm sure you're at least partly right, because as I say, I recognize many
exceptions to this bias-- and these are works for the most part that appeal
to me on other than conceptual grounds, like Coper's vases or Erik
Gronborg's teapots. But on the other hand, I'm a person with strong and
unconventional opinions about everything, including art, and I see many of
these painters and sculptors as ephemeral, however critically acclaimed. I
think it's okay to say "I don't like that." How does this "demean"
anyone's work? We can't all like everything; it would make the whole idea
of art criticism pointless. I think there's a tendency among intelligent
and knowledgeable artists to be critically all-accepting, perhaps in the
perfectly valid sense that we can learn from everything, even things we
don't like. But while I believe that artists should be free to make
anything they want to make, as long as no unwilling person gets badly hurt,
I also think we should all be free to have our own reactions to that work,
positive or negative. Does it make me a bad, or intolerant, or
unintelligent person if I find many of the major art figures of the 20th
century to be overrated? I think it makes me realistic. Remember that
most of us don't even know the names of the major art figures of the 17th
century-- we only know the names of that very small minority whose work
proved durable. The 20th century will be no different, though it's hard
for us, who are embedded in that temporal matrix, to understand that on any
basic level. It's our world, it's all we know. (But remember, I found the
Vigin Mary with elephant dung to be an interesting painting.)
It's through this sort of critical thinking (and argumentation) that we
come to understand why we feel as we do, and are able to take our critical
faculties past the lowest common denominator of "I know what I like." I do
this too, like everyone else, but I'm unwilling to publicly say "I like
this, or I don't like that," unless I can evolve some sort of rationale to
explain why I feel that way. Thus the natter, however silly it may sound.
>
>> There's nothing wrong with conceptual art, but it's wide, not deep.
>> Because it is dependent on an intellectual artifact rather than a real
>> world object like a painting or a sculpture, it is uninteresting unless it
>> is an original concept. I could wrap a local sandbar in plaid flannel and
>> call it "Homage to Redneck Christo," but I doubt I'd be taken very
>> seriously, because Christo exhausted the idea. It went stale after one
>> use, and that's just the nature of conceptual art.
>
>Actually, you would probably be taken very seriously,
What a horrid idea, Vince. You see, this is why I keep up my dues with the
The Loyal Order of Iconoclasts, Local 513.
I cannot see where
>your your reference to conceptual art is at all relevant to this discussion.
>I am not talking about conceptual art at all.
Definitions, I guess.
>
>> But in my opinion, conceptual art has to be new, or it rapidly
>> descends into bathos. After the first dozen or so giant soup cans, I was
>> ready for something else.
>
>I'll certainly agree with you there, but the same can be said of any artist
>who finds a comfortable niche, and proceeds to exhaust it ad nauseum.
>
>More . . . . . . I want more . . . . . .
>- Vince
Vince, I can't tell you how much I enjoy this sort of thing. It's so
pleasant to have an intelligent and responsive correspondent, one who isn't
afraid to be definite, and who doesn't take personal offense at
disagreement. As I sit at my wheel making my completely functional and not
terribly original little pots, I think about these things and smile. It's
good to feel the brain cells working (the few I have left after my life of
unrestrained dissipation.)
Ray
Aldridge Porcelain and Stoneware
http://www.goodpots.com
Ray Aldridge on tue 28 mar 00
At 11:39 PM 3/25/00 EST, you wrote:
>----------------------------Original message----------------------------
>Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2000 16:16:01 EST
>From: Percy Toms
>Subject: Re: non-functional teapots
>
>----------------------------Original message----------------------------
>
>Ray wrote the fateful words,
>
>>>Why hit the target a glancing blow, when it's so easy to nail it dead
>center?
>>>What no one has ever been able to explain to me is how a pot can become
>>>more powerful if its function is subtracted from it.
>
>And Ned Ludd reiterated:
>
>>Dead on, this question! The glove, my lords and ladies, is down.
>>Answers, anyone? I'm looking for some good ones...
>
>Percy & Ray,
>
> I think a fundimental reason for someone making them is exactly
>to inspire the type of reaction you and Ray are having toward them.
You're probably right, Lee, but that seems a fairly unambitious reason.
After all, I can get that sort of reaction just by posting to ClayArt, and
I don't even need to go to the trouble of making a teapot.
Ray
Aldridge Porcelain and Stoneware
http://www.goodpots.com
vince pitelka on tue 28 mar 00
Ray -
Yes, we may be putting some people to sleep, but I really enjoy this
discussion.
> on the basic idea of a covered container that pours. It cannot be
original
> in any basic sense.
Whoa!! It cannot be original? The fact that it pours cannot be original,
but otherwise there is unlimited room for originality.
> In the same way, an object which is primarily
> conceptual ought to be judged on the strength of its originality, since
> that's its raison d'etre. If it fails in that respect, it is a failure,
> however intriguing its secondary virtues, like form, color, etc.
I agree, although in this case I am looking at aesthetics, and at content
which addresses implied function, rather than at the actuality of
utilitarian function. So, the aesthetic design of the non-functional
teapot, and the narrative refrencing the tradition of function are the key
issues, and actual function is irrelevant if the artist chooses to ignore
it.
> I think that possibly our disagreement comes principally in our
definition,
> which is a common source of rhetorical friction. I regard the non-pouring
> teapot as a work of conceptual art, because the idea of non-function is
> evidently important enough to the artist to make it a primary feature of
> the work. If it weren't important, why not make it function?
This is where the real misunderstanding lies. When the primary intent or
content involves the visual and narrative implications of teapot form and
function, rather than the utilitarian reality, then that reality becomes
completely irrelevant, and there is no reason to go the extra effort to make
the teapot functional, any more than a sculptor working in wood or bronze
would make the elements in her/his work functional in a utilitarian sense.
> impressed, and not less so. So the decision to subtract function from an
> object that refers directly to functional clay should not be lightly
> undertaken-- if that decision is made, it should be for a good reason.
On the contrary, the decision to ignore utilitarian function is perfectly
natural and normal in the case of a sculptural work which references the
teapot form, while the decision to go to the extra effort to make the work
functional in a utilitarian sense is a little bizarre, unless one sets out
from the start to make utilitarian teapots or to comment on the actuality of
utilitarian function.
> only good reason that occurs to me is that the maker wants to make some
> sort of comment with her work *about* function or its absence, and that to
> me moves the piece into the arena of conceptual art. I don't generally
> think well a maker who just doesn't care if the piece works or not-- if
> that's the case, sculpt a dog, not a teapot.
I'm sorry, Ray, but by extending your logic one could just as easily say
that the sculpture of a dog would be more valid if it barked and peed on
hydrants and chased cars.
> I can't bring myself to reduce a work of art, especially a 3-dimensional
> work that references functional work, to nothing more than the purely
> visual aspect of the work. Surely there's more to it than that. If
that's
> all we were concerned about, we'd be painters.
I am not reducing it to "nothing more than the purely visual." I am
celebrating the aesthetic design and the narrative content, and I am saying
that if those qualities are strong they can stand on their own very
comfortably without the issue of utilitarian function ever being of any
concern at all.
> >> no one has ever been able to explain to me is how a pot can become
> >< more powerful if its function is subtracted from it.
Ray, I never even implied that the work becomes more powerful if it is
non-functional. To me, the notion is absurd. I am simply maintaining that
the non-functional teapot is a perfectly valid artistic statement, as long
as it is original and well-executed.
> I think it's okay to say "I don't like that." How does this "demean"
> anyone's work? We can't all like everything; it would make the whole idea
of art criticism pointless.
I have no idea where you came up with this as a response to anything I said.
I would defend to my dying day your right to express your likes or dislikes.
I delight in diversity of opinion. I am not trying to get you to agree with
my point of view, but I feel compelled to present my point of view.
I think there's a tendency among intelligent
> and knowledgeable artists to be critically all-accepting.
That is a frightening thought, and not at all true among most of the
intelligent and knowledgeable artists I know.
> I also think we should all be free to have our own reactions to that work,
> positive or negative. Does it make me a bad, or intolerant, or
> unintelligent person if I find many of the major art figures of the 20th
> century to be overrated? I think it makes me realistic.
Again, I am not sure who this is addressed to, because it certainly does not
respond to anything I said.
And I am enjoying every bit of this discussion,
- 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
http://www.craftcenter.tntech.edu/
vince pitelka on tue 28 mar 00
> What about mugs that don't function is that the same as tea pots that
don't
> function?
Teres -
The teapot is a complex sculptural form, with a myriad of social and
utilitarian implications. It is also very easily rendered non-functional by
minor changes in structure. The cup is perhaps less provocative as a
non-functional sculpture, although there have certainly been artists who
have taken it on very successfully. The foremost which come to mind are Ron
Nagle and Ken Price.
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
http://www.craftcenter.tntech.edu/
Murray & Bacia Edelman on wed 29 mar 00
Vince, oh Vince: Where were you when I had to defend myself and write
statements during the bunch of years that my teapots were parts of a
composition and definitely not utilitarian, a better word for me than
functional? I really loved what you wrote and have enjoyed the exchange
between you and Ray.
Vince wrote:
On the contrary, the decision to ignore utilitarian function is perfectly
natural and normal in the case of a sculptural work which references the
teapot form, while the decision to go to the extra effort to make the work
functional in a utilitarian sense is a little bizarre, unless one sets out
from the start to make utilitarian teapots or to comment on the actuality of
utilitarian function.
end quote
-------------------------
I have not entered the fray before for lack of security about what I might
say and for lack of time. But I am glad the conversation goes on and I
read every entry with the Subject: teapots.
For some strange reason, even my lichen-glazed teapots are becoming usable.
It is just where my thinking pushes me, and I obtain tremendous pleasure
when people, whom I know personally, buy the usable though still
"sculptural" teapots I had placed in a nearby gallery.
Bacia
P.S. The teapot is a great challenge to go either way or do a combination
study
Bacia Edelman Madison, Wisconsin
http://www.mypots.com/bacia.htm
Sharon31 on wed 29 mar 00
>-----Is there a difference between functional and utilitarian? And...what
is it?
> Sandy
Hi!
This is the point I tried to find. On the other hand: Is there a difference
between unfunctional and unutilitarian? Are they only words, I think that
the functional and unfunctional, are terms of art. The last one,
unutilitarian is "useless". This sharp and not fair describing of an
unfunctional piece,As I understood from Zakin's book.This meaning, opened
for me, the limits I had about how and what I should do!
Ababi
sharon@shoval.org.il
http://www.israelceramics.org/main.asp?what=gallery.htm
http://clay.justnet.com/cgallery/asharon.htm
vince pitelka on wed 29 mar 00
> ----------------------------Original message----------------------------
> Is there a difference between functional and utilitarian? And...what is
it?
Sandy -
Thanks for asking this question. This is another case of careless use of
terminology, although it has become so widespread that there is probably no
chance of correcting its usage. All art is functional, because it serves a
function. Utilitarian work is that which serves a practical everyday
function. In "high-art-speak," utilitarian carries a negative connotation.
Among those who make non-utilitarian sculptural work, there are some who are
immature, insecure, and uncertain of their place in the art world, and they
sometimes bolster their own self-confidence by condemning utilitarian clay.
Instead, they would serve their work and the clay community at large far
better by a little solidarity with all clay artists, whether their work is
sculptural or utilitarian (even that is a careless use of terminology,
because all work is sculptural, whether or not it is also utilitarian. This
is a sticky business).
So, it is hard to imagine any work of art or craft which is not functional:
i.e., that serves no function at all. Utilitarian has to do with practical
utility or useability.
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
http://www.craftcenter.tntech.edu/
Pancioli on wed 29 mar 00
The distinction between the words "functional" and "utilitarian" were
discussed briefly years ago at NCECA when Garth Clark stood up in the
audience and asked if what Bill Dailey was talking about when he used
the word "functional" wasn't really "utilitarian". Dailey bristled and
said that "we all know what we were talking about!"
Since then, however, I have made the distinction and used the word
"utility" when speaking of pots that are "useful". Function is a much
broader, less precise term. A painting "functions" as a thing of beauty
and contemplation. Many things "function" that are not useful.
I plan to join the discussion on utilitarian teapots as soon as I get a
minute. I think there are other issues about teapots that are not well
served by the simple distinction between utility and non-utility. I
believe that the language and the debate can become more precise, and I
am certainly glad to see it being discussed here.
Diana
Ray Aldridge on wed 29 mar 00
At 01:19 PM 3/28/00 EST, you wrote:
>----------------------------Original message----------------------------
>Ray -
>Yes, we may be putting some people to sleep, but I really enjoy this
>discussion.
>
>> on the basic idea of a covered container that pours. It cannot be
>original
>> in any basic sense.
>
>Whoa!! It cannot be original? The fact that it pours cannot be original,
>but otherwise there is unlimited room for originality.
Well, no, because its function sets certain limits on its originality. For
example, the opening must be at the top-- it cannot be at the bottom. The
spout will not point downward, it must not leak, and so forth. So its
originality must function within certain fairly rigid boundaries. (Of
course this is true of almost anything made by humans, but see below.)
In the cosmic sense, you are correct-- there are infinite variations
possible in glazes, in subtle elements of the shape, in surface decoration.
But in another sense, you could pick a thousand functional teapots at
random and line them up in rows and an observer walking down the rows would
be struck more vividly by the similarities than by the differences.
What we have here, I think, is one of the basic considerations in art
criticism, which is how far apart along the vernier scale of originality
you intend to set your parameters. If you get too cosmic, too
all-inclusive, then you must say that every plastic toy is an original
work, because the slight distortion caused as the plastic is removed from
the injection mold makes each toy different in microscopic terms. If you
narrow the scale somewhat, then you can still call a cylindrical production
mug with a brown matte glaze and a pulled handle original, because each is
slightly different.
If you go too far in narrowing the range, then almost nothing is new. But
it's my opinion that functional clay is not a terribly original medium of
expression (though there are other aspects of it that more than make up for
this.) A functional teapot is more *personalized* than originated, if you
see what I mean. I don't think this makes it a lesser object in any way.
There are many other art forms where the highest goal is personalization
rather than origination. The novel is an excellent example. There is
nothing very new about the stories in our greatest novels-- their strength
is in the personalization their writers achieve. There are no really new
plots and there are no really new teapots. The "nonfunctional teapot" is a
valiant attempt to circumvent this reality, but in my opinion it fails.
>> impressed, and not less so. So the decision to subtract function from an
>> object that refers directly to functional clay should not be lightly
>> undertaken-- if that decision is made, it should be for a good reason.
>
>On the contrary, the decision to ignore utilitarian function is perfectly
>natural and normal in the case of a sculptural work which references the
>teapot form, while the decision to go to the extra effort to make the work
>functional in a utilitarian sense is a little bizarre, unless one sets out
>from the start to make utilitarian teapots or to comment on the actuality of
>utilitarian function.
Here we'll have to disagree, because the irreducible essence of a teapot is
its function, in human ritual terms. To ignore that is to diminish the
work, except under certain special circumstances. A raku teapot may ignore
function because it must. A teapot 3 feet tall must also ignore function.
A teapot which closely resembles a functional teapot but does not function
is a bit of silly whimsy. Nothing terribly wrong with that, but I can't
take it seriously as a work of art. It's just a little too thoughtless for
my taste-- I think work which purports to be original should make a
muscular movement in that direction. Let me try to clarify this with an
example. If you're familiar with the work of Goeffrey Swindell, a student
of Hans Coper, you may remember the beautiful forms he was making in the
early 80s-- they had tiny feet, from which the form swept up and out to a
strong flange, above which rose a soft dome and a small mouth. I don't
know if the teapot was the inspiration for these forms, but that would be
my guess, because in looking at them, you can easily imagine a spout and a
handle, (which would make a truly lovely teapot, by the way.) In any case,
this is in my opinion a valid reference to the teapot. But it is *not* a
teapot. There are no useless and vestigial elements which serve some murky
conceptual purpose (or if you like, narrative purpose.) It is what it is,
and it is superior to any work I've seen which refers coquettishly to the
function of the teapot, while in some labored way denying that function.
>
>> only good reason that occurs to me is that the maker wants to make some
>> sort of comment with her work *about* function or its absence, and that to
>> me moves the piece into the arena of conceptual art. I don't generally
>> think well a maker who just doesn't care if the piece works or not-- if
>> that's the case, sculpt a dog, not a teapot.
>
>I'm sorry, Ray, but by extending your logic one could just as easily say
>that the sculpture of a dog would be more valid if it barked and peed on
>hydrants and chased cars.
I think it definitely would be more "valid." Or at least, a hell of a lot
more interesting. Don't you? Wouldn't you be knocked out by such a
sculpture? I think we'd all go to see it, if it came to town. (I have to
admit a bias here-- my first published science fiction story was written
from the viewpoint of a motile sculpture that saw itself as a real person.)
But it's not as far-fetched as we might suppose, because clearly art works
with some degree of autonomy are on the horizon, and in the case of
computer art, they're already here. This will force artists to make
choices that our primitive technology so far protects them from. Would
Guernica have been more powerful with a soundtrack, for example?
>
>> I can't bring myself to reduce a work of art, especially a 3-dimensional
>> work that references functional work, to nothing more than the purely
>> visual aspect of the work. Surely there's more to it than that. If
>that's
>> all we were concerned about, we'd be painters.
>
>I am not reducing it to "nothing more than the purely visual." I am
>celebrating the aesthetic design and the narrative content, and I am saying
>that if those qualities are strong they can stand on their own very
>comfortably without the issue of utilitarian function ever being of any
>concern at all.
Then why make reference to it at all, if it's unnecessary or irrelevant?
To me, this is thoughtless and weakens the thrust of the piece. Evidently
some aspect of the teapot stimulated the design of the piece, which we are
still calling a "nonfunctional teapot." If the function of the teapot is
irrelevant to the artist, why provide the faux teapot with a spout or a
handle? I like whimsy as well or better than most, but it's like a joke--
it's most entertaining the first time you hear it.
>
>> I think it's okay to say "I don't like that." How does this "demean"
>> anyone's work? We can't all like everything; it would make the whole idea
>of art criticism pointless.
>
>I have no idea where you came up with this as a response to anything I said.
Vince, here's what you said that prompted this response, though perhaps I
misunderstood you, or you didn't mean what you appear to be saying here:
>>>This is getting a little silly. Your language implies such a profound
>>>bias against any artwork which references utilitarian forms, which
demeans >>>the work of so many leading sculptors and painters of the 20th
century.
>> I also think we should all be free to have our own reactions to that work,
>> positive or negative. Does it make me a bad, or intolerant, or
>> unintelligent person if I find many of the major art figures of the 20th
>> century to be overrated? I think it makes me realistic.
>Again, I am not sure who this is addressed to, because it certainly does not
>respond to anything I said.
See above.
>
>And I am enjoying every bit of this discussion,
Me too, and I hope we're not putting folks to sleep.
Ray
Aldridge Porcelain and Stoneware
http://www.goodpots.com
vince pitelka on thu 30 mar 00
> Well, no, because its function sets certain limits on its originality.
For
> example, the opening must be at the top-- it cannot be at the bottom. The
> spout will not point downward, it must not leak, and so forth. So its
> originality must function within certain fairly rigid boundaries.
No, the utilitarian function is a reality of a working teapot, and it sets
certain parameters of design, but otherwise it does not limit the potential
for originality at all.
> But in another sense, you could pick a thousand functional teapots at
> random and line them up in rows and an observer walking down the rows
would
> be struck more vividly by the similarities than by the differences.
Only in that they are all teapots. Otherwise the openminded art lover would
celebrate the originality and difference found in each teapot.
> What we have here, I think, is one of the basic considerations in art
> criticism, which is how far apart along the vernier scale of originality
> you intend to set your parameters.
Originality is originality is originality. Pardon my directness, but please
don't be ridiculous. We are talking about originality in form and surface,
and in that regard, whether the teapot functions or not in a utilitarian
sense, there is unlimited room for originality, and an extraordinary range
of orignality in contemporary teapots and in sculptures which depict
teapots.
> If you go too far in narrowing the range, then almost nothing is new. But
> it's my opinion that functional clay is not a terribly original medium of
> expression (though there are other aspects of it that more than make up
for this.) A functional teapot is more *personalized* than originated, if
you
> see what I mean. I don't think this makes it a lesser object in any way.
Listen to your own words. It is a matter of context. When considered in
the context of ceramic form and expression through the millenia, there is a
great deal of originality out there today. And the last sentence above is
just plain odd. A functional teapot is personalized if you sign it, or if
you emblazon your studio name on the shoulder. If it is different from
previous teapots, then it is original. No one is implying that anyone has
originated an entirely new form. That would indeed be a great challenge.
But if we endow it with new attrubutes of form and surface, or narrative
content, then it is an original expression.
> There are no really new
> plots and there are no really new teapots. The "nonfunctional teapot" is
a
> valiant attempt to circumvent this reality, but in my opinion it fails.
In person, you do not seem like a pessimist, and in your posts on Clayart
you seem optimistic, but the above seems profoundly pessimistic to me,
especially coming from a writer. You betray a fundamental lack of faith in
the human spirit and its natural inclination for original self-expression.
> Here we'll have to disagree, because the irreducible essence of a teapot
is its function, in human ritual terms. To ignore that is to diminish the
> work, except under certain special circumstances.
OK, now we're really talking around in circles. I have never advocated
ignoring utilitarian function. Sculptural teapots are about an essentially
utilitarian object. But it seems obvious to me that there is no reason
whatsover to clutter up a sculptural teapot with fussy attention to ACTUAL
utilitarian function. As I said, in that context it is entirely irrelevant,
and a little absurd.
> A teapot which closely resembles a functional teapot but does not function
is a bit of silly whimsy. Nothing terribly wrong with that, but I can't
take it seriously as a work of art. It's just a little too thoughtless for
> my taste-- I think work which purports to be original should make a
> muscular movement in that direction.
Strange reference. I don't see anything silly or whimsical in a sculptural
teapot, unless that is part of the narrative. This is getting a little
tedious. You can't take seriously a sculpture representing a teapot,
because it does not function in a utilitarian sense? Are you serious? If
you extend this to the art world at large, you are really limiting your
opportunities. That is your choice, but it is indeed a bizarre way to look
at art. I have never come across anything like it before.
>>I'm sorry, Ray, but by extending your logic one could just as easily say
>>that the sculpture of a dog would be more valid if it barked and peed on
>>hydrants and chased cars.
> I think it definitely would be more "valid." Or at least, a hell of a lot
> more interesting. Don't you? Wouldn't you be knocked out by such a
> sculpture? I think we'd all go to see it, if it came to town.
I can't tell when you are trying to make your point by going overboard in
the direction of the totally absurd. I like kinetic sculture, but to imply
that a sculpture would necessarily be more valid or interesting simply
because it is kinetic implies a pretty limited view of art.
> Would Guernica have been more powerful with a soundtrack, for example?
No.
> Then why make reference to it at all, if it's unnecessary or irrelevant?
Ray, that's what artist's do. They reference things, and they interpret
them. They do not reproduce them literally, except when the literal
reproduction is essential to their narrative. The fact that a teapot pours
tea is an essential part of the narrative, but the reality of the teapot
actually pouring is completely irrelevant, I say again, and again, and
again. Really, isn't it pretty obvious? I mean, this is basic art stuff.
> still calling a "nonfunctional teapot." If the function of the teapot is
> irrelevant to the artist, why provide the faux teapot with a spout or a
> handle? I like whimsy as well or better than most, but it's like a joke--
> it's most entertaining the first time you hear it.
I guess I am about done with this, because I am getting tired of talking
around in circles. It is not a faux teapot, it is a sculpture referencing a
teapot. No one is copying a teapot. It is an orignal expression which
comments on the teapot, and in such a work of art the reality of pouring tea
is an optional but unnecessary accessory to that commentary. And again,
there is nothing essentially whimsical or silly about a sculpture which
references the teapot, any more than in a sculpture which references any
other utilitarian object.
> Vince, here's what you said that prompted this response, though perhaps I
misunderstood you, or you didn't mean what you appear to be saying here:
> >>>This is getting a little silly. Your language implies such a profound
> >>>bias against any artwork which references utilitarian forms, which
> demeans >>>the work of so many leading sculptors and painters of the 20th
century.
Yes Ray, that is what I said, but how in the world did you interpret that as
a condemnation of your right to express your opinions?
It is apparent that we are not going to come to any agreement on this issue.
My enthusiasm for originality of expression is perhaps more than a bit
idealistic. I believe in the essentially non-conformist core of the human
spirit. Our society does a lot to supress those inclinations, and artists
are among the few who overcome that supression. I believe that every trace
of originality in form and content is important and should be treasured. I
believe that every person has the potential to make original art and the
ability to appreciate art. I do not waste time looking for what is stale
and stagnant in art. Instead, I try to be very sensitive to what is
original and inventive, and I see a lot of that in ceramics today. It keeps
me enthusiastic about the ongoing evolution of our medium.
This has been fun, but it's time to move on to something else.
- 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
http://www.craftcenter.tntech.edu/
Janet Kaiser on thu 30 mar 00
Utilitarian = it is used to complete a job like any other "tool"
Functional = it works doing the job for which it was intended.
Hence a non-functional teapot does not do the job a teapot is intended to
do.
Or at least that is my "definition"
Janet Kaiser
The Chapel of Art, Criccieth LL52 0EA, GB-Wales
Home of The International Potters Path
TEL: (01766) 523570
WEB: http://www.the-coa.org.uk
EMAIL: postbox@the-coa.org.uk
ferenc jakab on thu 30 mar 00
> between unfunctional and unutilitarian? Are they only words, I think that
> the functional and unfunctional, are terms of art. The last one,
> unutilitarian is "useless". This sharp and not fair describing of an
> unfunctional piece,As I understood from Zakin's book.This meaning, opened
> for me, the limits I had about how and what I should do!
> Ababi
Ababi,
I actually think utilitarian or non-utilitarian are better descriptions.
After all, The so called un or non-functional peice does have a function.
I.e. to be viewed as an aesthetic, a challenge, a decoration, etc.
I truly believe that much of this discussion, which is a very old one, is
fairly pointless. It's circumlocutory. Nevertheless I've been drawn into it
again. Oh dear! I swore I wouldn't in 1972.
Feri.
Lyla Kaplan on fri 31 mar 00
check this article out:
http://www.ferringallery.com/teapots/ubiquitousteapot.html
Jeff Lawrence on fri 31 mar 00
Vince Pitelka wrote
All art is functional, because it serves a function.
<< and then went on to distinguish between "functional pottery" and
"utilitarian work"
Hi Vince,
If you mean art serves the function of being art, then like any tautology,
your statement is true but not significant.
As a fairly fluent English speaker, I find the phrase "functional pottery"
fairly straightforward, whether critical writers like it or not. The phrase
"utilitarian work" can embrace other media and forms, but let's face it - it
means pretty much the same thing.
Reject content-free micro-distinctions, however seductive! Hold the line
against sophism, Vince!
Jeff Lawrence ph. 505-753-5913
Sun Dagger Design fx. 505-753-8074
18496 US HWY 285/84 jml@sundagger.com
Espanola, NM 87532 www.sundagger.com
Norman van der Sluys on fri 31 mar 00
I guess this means that art which fails in its expressive intent is
non-functional, and that which succeeds is functional. This seems to
preserve the perjoritive flavor of the term "non-functional" that some makers
of utilitarian pots seem to prefer!
Norman van der Sluys
Glad to no longer be in the business of splitting hairs,so I can now
occasionally enjoy it as an amusement.
Janet Kaiser wrote:
> ----------------------------Original message----------------------------
> Utilitarian = it is used to complete a job like any other "tool"
>
> Functional = it works doing the job for which it was intended.
>
> Hence a non-functional teapot does not do the job a teapot is intended to
> do.
>
> Or at least that is my "definition"
>
> Janet Kaiser
> The Chapel of Art, Criccieth LL52 0EA, GB-Wales
> Home of The International Potters Path
> TEL: (01766) 523570
> WEB: http://www.the-coa.org.uk
> EMAIL: postbox@the-coa.org.uk
vince pitelka on sat 1 apr 00
> If you mean art serves the function of being art, then like any tautology,
> your statement is true but not significant.
Jeff -
Let's not split hairs excessively here. All art is functional, and that
seems so obvious that it hardly needs further explanation. If art had no
function, no one would make art.
> As a fairly fluent English speaker, I find the phrase "functional pottery"
> fairly straightforward, whether critical writers like it or not. The
phrase
> "utilitarian work" can embrace other media and forms, but let's face it -
it
> means pretty much the same thing.
It has unfortunately come in to common usage, but technically it does not
mean the same thing at all. Utilitarian pottery is that which is intended
to be used. Plain an dsimple. Functional simply implies that it has a
function, which can certainly extend beyond everyday utility.
Yea, I know I am fighting a pointless battle here.
- 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
http://www.craftcenter.tntech.edu/
Antoinette Badenhorst on tue 4 apr 00
And Vince is it not true that this type of misusing of words sometimes causes
so many misunderstandings. I love this discussions. It open ones minds and
give direction. Just wish someone would react to my questions on how people
get to their designs. Maybe I asked that on the wrong time. I will wait till
the teapot thing is worked out for the moment and then throw the one on
design in again.
Antoinette Badenhorst
PO Box 552
Saltillo,MS
38866
Antoinette Badenhorst on tue 4 apr 00
Well, you do not put me to sleep! Love this discussions. Here is my one sent
in the well. Ray, do I understand you right if you say in effect that some
artists push the idea of a teapot over the edge of truth? If that is what you
say, I want to agree with you. I have nothing against a nonfunctional or a
not utilitarian teapot, but then the artist should have a good reason to make
a teapot that way. If someone decide to make a teapot and a cyclist for
instance in one, it should come natural. Such an idea should show why the
cyclist can be a teapot and why the teapot can be a cyclist. If this does not
happen the idea fails. In such a case one can just make a cyclist, or just
make a teapot. On the other hand if one wants to make a statement (which at
least one other person should understand!), one will make an out of
proportion teapot. In this case it will definitely not function as a teapot,
but refer to one. This will have a function of its own.
I think there are too many people that push too hard on the teapot idea. It
bring out an uneasy feeling of what should be a sculptural teapot or what
should be a non-utillarian, functional teapot.
I believe that art is what one observes, process in ones mind and give it
back to the world in a way that one express one self. This art becomes
meaningful (functional) when people understand what the artist wants to say.
If this does not happen, because one is forced into a teapot idea, one cannot
be true to one self or the world out there. If it is possible to make the
sculptural teapot utilitarian, one will achieve so much more if it has some
expression of a different kind as well. If one only makes a utilitarian
teapot, at least make it workable!
Antoinette.
Antoinette Badenhorst
PO Box 552
Saltillo,MS
38866
| |
|
