Janet Kaiser on wed 15 mar 00
Stephen
In my opinion the simple answer is "NO" it is simply unethical and plain
cheating. However, it is understandable. The humble mug is the "bread and
butter" of many a potter. A love-hate relationship is often the result. Some
potters hate the boredom, others like the soothing time spent production
throwing. Gives them time to think of other (higher?) things. Whatever the
attitude, mugs help pay bills and keep shelves full. A mug also satisfies
many customers who like a potter's work but cannot afford more than a mug.
The mug should therefore have been made by that potter, or at least in their
workshop... The device of apprentices making and the master marking is an
old tradition. It is an acceptable practice because the potter is still in
control of the whole process and is an extension of the old "master"
tradition.
What I find inexcusable is coming to you or any other third party for
"blanks". It shows an appalling arrogance not to say lack of integrity and
respect for both you and the end buyer. It is very naughty. It lets them
down as serious potters in the eyes of their peers and (once it is generally
known this is their method and attitude) it will diminish their standing in
the market place. That is to say, from galleries, to colleges and
professional associations all that potter's work will be devalued.
People who are too bloody superior to make their own work, but like to cash
in on the sales are not good for themselves or for the rest of us in the
field. We all work damned hard to survive and cannot afford rotten apples.
I sincerely hope that the next company or studio they approach will show the
same integrity you have.
Unfortunately, I suspect that they will find someone, somewhere who will not
share your justifiable qualms. Let us hope they are not so hungry they will
stifle their ethics and/or be so overawed by the great potter "X" they will
agree to this pernicious practice.
Speaking as a gallery, I would be much obliged if you could let me know of
the "names" who are indulging this practice. Please mail me off-list. Any
information you give me will be treated in confidence.
With regard to the new tax: It would obviously only go to the person (or
their estate) who is identifiable as the artist. That is the one whose mark
or signature is on the piece. In this case it would be highly unlikely that
a production pot would enter this category, as it only applies to "art" and
as far as I know the law is only for a limited number of years after the
artist died. So by the time a mug could be considered a work of art, it
would not affect either the maker or the decorator or their estates.
Janet Kaiser - hopping mad!
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 -----
> Hi all,
> We would like your comments on the following .....
>
> Over the last year we at Morrigan Craft Pottery - UK, have been contacted
by
> many well known UK potters wanting us to make blank pots, biscuit fired.
> The potters would then glaze and decorate to their style and are then sold
as
> their work.
> Should this happen?
> There are a number of potters we know who decorate other people's work and
> sell at major shows as all their own work. Other potters have students
> working for them and stamping work of students as there own. Is this
right?
> We have made blanks in the past for potters who decorate, but our stamp is
on
> the item and so is the decorators.
>
> Are the 'potters' who decorate blank pots and sell these as there own
work,
> cheating?
> Do you see them as a potter or a decorator?
> Are the public being cheated as they think that the whole item is the work
of
> that particular potter?
> In the UK the law has been changed so that if an item becomes a work of
art
> and sold via an auction house 4% will be paid to the artist; but who is
the
> artist? the person who made the item or the person who decorated it?
Should
> they get 2% each?
>
> We have recently turned down a substantial order to produce biscuit ware
for
> a well established potter. His work is sold both here in the UK and in
USA
> in major galleries. He wanted us to put his stamp on our blanks we felt
this
> compromised our work and reputation. We have spoken to one or two potters
in
> our local area who have less of a problem with this situation. This
> situation causes us much discussion, we would welcome your thoughts on
this
> issue.
>
> Stephen & Karen Parry-Thomas,
>www.morrigancraftpottery.co.uk
Earl Brunner on thu 16 mar 00
So, what's the problem? I can buy a ram press and stamp out
tiles,
decorate them and sell them for big bucks, or I can buy
bisqued tiles, decorate them and sell them for big bucks. (I
could also get out my
rolling pin and roll my own slabs by hand) I can ram just
about anything
else I want as well. You can buy generic blank bisque from
the Rosen
Group (their design), you can have them make blank bisque to
your design
and specification. The key here isn't how the stuff is
made, it's how
it's represented and sold. If the emphasis is on the
decoration and
glazing and design and it isn't being represented as one of
a kind
original, thrown work, I don't see the problem.
If it puts the bread and butter on the table and is not
unethical (by
that I mean misrepresented) it could be the difference
between surviving
and not. Maybe having a line like this will allow the
artist to make more
of the kinds of things he/she really wants to make. Maybe
it's not a question of art, maybe it's just a job.
Janet Kaiser wrote:
>
> ----------------------------Original message----------------------------
> Stephen
>
> In my opinion the simple answer is "NO" it is simply unethical and plain
> cheating. However, it is understandable. The humble mug is the "bread and
> butter" of many a potter. A love-hate relationship is often the result. Some
> potters hate the boredom, others like the soothing time spent production
> throwing. Gives them time to think of other (higher?) things. Whatever the
> attitude, mugs help pay bills and keep shelves full. A mug also satisfies
> many customers who like a potter's work but cannot afford more than a mug.
>
> The mug should therefore have been made by that potter, or at least in their
> workshop... The device of apprentices making and the master marking is an
> old tradition. It is an acceptable practice because the potter is still in
> control of the whole process and is an extension of the old "master"
> tradition.
>
> What I find inexcusable is coming to you or any other third party for
> "blanks". It shows an appalling arrogance not to say lack of integrity and
> respect for both you and the end buyer. It is very naughty. It lets them
> down as serious potters in the eyes of their peers and (once it is generally
> known this is their method and attitude) it will diminish their standing in
> the market place. That is to say, from galleries, to colleges and
> professional associations all that potter's work will be devalued.
>
> People who are too bloody superior to make their own work, but like to cash
> in on the sales are not good for themselves or for the rest of us in the
> field. We all work damned hard to survive and cannot afford rotten apples.
> I sincerely hope that the next company or studio they approach will show the
> same integrity you have.
>
> Unfortunately, I suspect that they will find someone, somewhere who will not
> share your justifiable qualms. Let us hope they are not so hungry they will
> stifle their ethics and/or be so overawed by the great potter "X" they will
> agree to this pernicious practice.
>
> Speaking as a gallery, I would be much obliged if you could let me know of
> the "names" who are indulging this practice. Please mail me off-list. Any
> information you give me will be treated in confidence.
>
> With regard to the new tax: It would obviously only go to the person (or
> their estate) who is identifiable as the artist. That is the one whose mark
> or signature is on the piece. In this case it would be highly unlikely that
> a production pot would enter this category, as it only applies to "art" and
> as far as I know the law is only for a limited number of years after the
> artist died. So by the time a mug could be considered a work of art, it
> would not affect either the maker or the decorator or their estates.
>
> Janet Kaiser - hopping mad!
> 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 -----
> > Hi all,
> > We would like your comments on the following .....
> >
> > Over the last year we at Morrigan Craft Pottery - UK, have been contacted
> by
> > many well known UK potters wanting us to make blank pots, biscuit fired.
> > The potters would then glaze and decorate to their style and are then sold
> as
> > their work.
> > Should this happen?
> > There are a number of potters we know who decorate other people's work and
> > sell at major shows as all their own work. Other potters have students
> > working for them and stamping work of students as there own. Is this
> right?
> > We have made blanks in the past for potters who decorate, but our stamp is
> on
> > the item and so is the decorators.
> >
> > Are the 'potters' who decorate blank pots and sell these as there own
> work,
> > cheating?
> > Do you see them as a potter or a decorator?
> > Are the public being cheated as they think that the whole item is the work
> of
> > that particular potter?
> > In the UK the law has been changed so that if an item becomes a work of
> art
> > and sold via an auction house 4% will be paid to the artist; but who is
> the
> > artist? the person who made the item or the person who decorated it?
> Should
> > they get 2% each?
> >
> > We have recently turned down a substantial order to produce biscuit ware
> for
> > a well established potter. His work is sold both here in the UK and in
> USA
> > in major galleries. He wanted us to put his stamp on our blanks we felt
> this
> > compromised our work and reputation. We have spoken to one or two potters
> in
> > our local area who have less of a problem with this situation. This
> > situation causes us much discussion, we would welcome your thoughts on
> this
> > issue.
> >
> > Stephen & Karen Parry-Thomas,
> >www.morrigancraftpottery.co.uk
--
Earl Brunner
http://coyote.accessnv.com/bruec
mailto:bruec@anv.net
Norman van der Sluys on thu 16 mar 00
Historically, of course, the Greek model is one of potters and decorators, but
often both signed the work - and the Greeks invented the idea of signing art
work. The late middle ages and renaissance practice of workshops meant that many
works of art were produced largely by apprentices with the master doing the
"important parts." In this case there is often no documentation for who did
what, only lore and stylistic analysis. Of course the 19th century pretty much
did away with that practice in the fine arts - at least in painting. The cult of
personality took hold with the Impressionists. Those working in bronze casting
and print making often collaborate with craftsmen out of necessity (or at least
practicallity.) The studio potter seems to be modelled after the Impressionist
painter model, however, and we now relish the finger marks of the master as a
valuable characteristic. Potters also must fight to distinguish themselves from
industry, a fact that is brought home to me every time I go to WalMart and look
at those large salad serving bowls from China that sell for $6! And a
neighboring potter has jiggered and jolleyed his way into the hearts of the
buying public here. So I guess it all depends on how you view your work and
your role in the scheme of things - if you carry the banner for humanized
objects just say no to those who want to buy blanks - if youwant to think of
yourself as an obsolete laborer hanging on to a small niche in the economy, then
go ahead and sell the stuff to the charlatans. They have all that history to
point to to justify their actions.
Norman van der Sluys
Janet Kaiser wrote:
> ----------------------------Original message----------------------------
> Stephen
>
> In my opinion the simple answer is "NO" it is simply unethical and plain
> cheating. However, it is understandable. The humble mug is the "bread and
> butter" of many a potter. A love-hate relationship is often the result. Some
> potters hate the boredom, others like the soothing time spent production
> throwing. Gives them time to think of other (higher?) things. Whatever the
> attitude, mugs help pay bills and keep shelves full. A mug also satisfies
> many customers who like a potter's work but cannot afford more than a mug.
>
> The mug should therefore have been made by that potter, or at least in their
> workshop... The device of apprentices making and the master marking is an
> old tradition. It is an acceptable practice because the potter is still in
> control of the whole process and is an extension of the old "master"
> tradition.
>
> What I find inexcusable is coming to you or any other third party for
> "blanks". It shows an appalling arrogance not to say lack of integrity and
> respect for both you and the end buyer. It is very naughty. It lets them
> down as serious potters in the eyes of their peers and (once it is generally
> known this is their method and attitude) it will diminish their standing in
> the market place. That is to say, from galleries, to colleges and
> professional associations all that potter's work will be devalued.
>
> People who are too bloody superior to make their own work, but like to cash
> in on the sales are not good for themselves or for the rest of us in the
> field. We all work damned hard to survive and cannot afford rotten apples.
> I sincerely hope that the next company or studio they approach will show the
> same integrity you have.
>
> Unfortunately, I suspect that they will find someone, somewhere who will not
> share your justifiable qualms. Let us hope they are not so hungry they will
> stifle their ethics and/or be so overawed by the great potter "X" they will
> agree to this pernicious practice.
>
> Speaking as a gallery, I would be much obliged if you could let me know of
> the "names" who are indulging this practice. Please mail me off-list. Any
> information you give me will be treated in confidence.
>
> With regard to the new tax: It would obviously only go to the person (or
> their estate) who is identifiable as the artist. That is the one whose mark
> or signature is on the piece. In this case it would be highly unlikely that
> a production pot would enter this category, as it only applies to "art" and
> as far as I know the law is only for a limited number of years after the
> artist died. So by the time a mug could be considered a work of art, it
> would not affect either the maker or the decorator or their estates.
>
> Janet Kaiser - hopping mad!
> 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 -----
> > Hi all,
> > We would like your comments on the following .....
> >
> > Over the last year we at Morrigan Craft Pottery - UK, have been contacted
> by
> > many well known UK potters wanting us to make blank pots, biscuit fired.
> > The potters would then glaze and decorate to their style and are then sold
> as
> > their work.
> > Should this happen?
> > There are a number of potters we know who decorate other people's work and
> > sell at major shows as all their own work. Other potters have students
> > working for them and stamping work of students as there own. Is this
> right?
> > We have made blanks in the past for potters who decorate, but our stamp is
> on
> > the item and so is the decorators.
> >
> > Are the 'potters' who decorate blank pots and sell these as there own
> work,
> > cheating?
> > Do you see them as a potter or a decorator?
> > Are the public being cheated as they think that the whole item is the work
> of
> > that particular potter?
> > In the UK the law has been changed so that if an item becomes a work of
> art
> > and sold via an auction house 4% will be paid to the artist; but who is
> the
> > artist? the person who made the item or the person who decorated it?
> Should
> > they get 2% each?
> >
> > We have recently turned down a substantial order to produce biscuit ware
> for
> > a well established potter. His work is sold both here in the UK and in
> USA
> > in major galleries. He wanted us to put his stamp on our blanks we felt
> this
> > compromised our work and reputation. We have spoken to one or two potters
> in
> > our local area who have less of a problem with this situation. This
> > situation causes us much discussion, we would welcome your thoughts on
> this
> > issue.
> >
> > Stephen & Karen Parry-Thomas,
> >www.morrigancraftpottery.co.uk
| |
|
