Linda Paul on thu 23 mar 00
<points, but these folks all said that they were too smart to get involved in
the exchange of flak that would surely result. I wasn't that smart, but I'm
sure I will eventually get used to my new role as ClayArt AntiChrist.
>>
Dear Ray:
You were smarter, and refreshingly confident enough to be candid about your
opinion regardless of whether or not your opinion is the popular one. I very
much admire that trait in people, even when I don't agree with what they're
saying. I always enjoy reading your posts; I find them to be thought
provoking, informative, and always well written.
I don't know how many people read ClayArt, but I can bet that, like myself,
there are many of us who, after reading your original post on MacKenzie,
understood your main point (i.e., unless one's wage is subsidized like
MacKenzie's, one cannot follow his pricing model and hope to earn a decent
living wage).
The point was clearly made and is irrefutable. So why all the flak? I
suspect it was the fighting words ("juvenile" and "fool" come to mind) used
to embellish your main point; words which added a great deal of heat, and not
much light, to your main point. I think these words came across as an attack
upon the man.
Your closing paragraph, which contained the words "I hope no one will take
this as an attack on a great American potter" only seemed to underscore that
it was an attack and that the disclaimer was merely an attempt to mollify
anyone angered by the fighting words that came before. This may not have
been the case, I only state that it seemed so to me at the time I read it.
In conclusion, I would like to add that, as always, I admire and respect your
contributions to the ClayArt experience and hope you continue to be as freely
candid as ever. Far from being the ClayArt AntiChrist, I consider you to be
among ClayArt's many "rays" of light. (Sorry for the easy pun and for
sounding so darn gushy.)
Linda Paul
TheClosetPotter@aol.com
New York, NY
tgschs10 on fri 24 mar 00
Damien,
I too have enjoyed your post on this listserve. In respect to Warren
MacKenzie and the others of his mind set, they may affect the local sale of
pottery but on a national or global scale they have little effect. In the
business world if someone wishes to underprice they won't stay in business.
Whereas they may produce a local effect for some finite time, no one potter
or business person can underprice his work and have an enduring business. I
admire the Warren MacKenzies of the world as artist but being impractical
business entrepneurs they will not prevail. However, God help those in their
immediate vicinity while they produce. As a retired physician and attorney,
I am producing pottery out of a love of creativity and as I am starting to
sell, I find myself not pricing to make a living but rather to cover
expenses and in this sense maybe - I guess I am Warren MacKenzie like.
Although, I don't price at a low value for any philosophical reasons. I
certainly don't have any intention of purposely hurting struggling emerging
artist but I am accumulating pottery at a disturbing rate now that I am
retired and I sometimes contemplate a garage sale to clear out my
accumulations. I consider myself as more than a sophisticated hobbist who
must face the same considerations. I do break up a lot of "crap" that I make
but a lot is getting better and I have no inkling of how to price my wares.
I have a committment with a couple of galleries whereby the entire sale
price goes to the homeless clinic but even this interferes with the emerging
artist who might lose a sale because of someone purchasing a piece of my
pottery. In the long run, I don't imagine that my sales will ever make much
of an impact and indeed, I hope that whoever buys a piece of my pottery will
appreciate the enthusiam and love of the craft we practice and thereby
become an affectionado. I do know that Warren MacKenzie has not appreciable
impact upon pottery sales in Orlando and after he is gone I doubt whether
his influence regarding low priced pottery will have any lasting effect in
the area that he practices. In the final analysis market forces such as
supply and demand will prevail. I met two potters this past week from
Warren's area, they are quite successful and think Warren a mediocre-good
potter but also regard him as not a significant threat to their business. I
think that all of this Warren MacKenzie talk should be put in perspective.
Outside of Minn, what is his effect?
Tom Sawyer
Orlando, Fl
tgschs10@msn.com
--- Original Message -----
From: "Linda Paul"
To:
Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2000 3:11 PM
Subject: Dear Damien (artist formerly known as Ray)
> ----------------------------Original message----------------------------
> <these
> points, but these folks all said that they were too smart to get involved
in
> the exchange of flak that would surely result. I wasn't that smart, but
I'm
> sure I will eventually get used to my new role as ClayArt AntiChrist.
> >>
>
> Dear Ray:
>
> You were smarter, and refreshingly confident enough to be candid about
your
> opinion regardless of whether or not your opinion is the popular one. I
very
> much admire that trait in people, even when I don't agree with what
they're
> saying. I always enjoy reading your posts; I find them to be thought
> provoking, informative, and always well written.
>
> I don't know how many people read ClayArt, but I can bet that, like
myself,
> there are many of us who, after reading your original post on MacKenzie,
> understood your main point (i.e., unless one's wage is subsidized like
> MacKenzie's, one cannot follow his pricing model and hope to earn a decent
> living wage).
>
> The point was clearly made and is irrefutable. So why all the flak? I
> suspect it was the fighting words ("juvenile" and "fool" come to mind)
used
> to embellish your main point; words which added a great deal of heat, and
not
> much light, to your main point. I think these words came across as an
attack
> upon the man.
>
> Your closing paragraph, which contained the words "I hope no one will take
> this as an attack on a great American potter" only seemed to underscore
that
> it was an attack and that the disclaimer was merely an attempt to mollify
> anyone angered by the fighting words that came before. This may not have
> been the case, I only state that it seemed so to me at the time I read it.
>
> In conclusion, I would like to add that, as always, I admire and respect
your
> contributions to the ClayArt experience and hope you continue to be as
freely
> candid as ever. Far from being the ClayArt AntiChrist, I consider you to
be
> among ClayArt's many "rays" of light. (Sorry for the easy pun and for
> sounding so darn gushy.)
>
> Linda Paul
> TheClosetPotter@aol.com
> New York, NY
>
| |
|
