Barbara Schmidt on wed 26 apr 00
The schism between those who work on the wheel and those cast their own molds
or buy pre-bisqued pieces or greenware is mystifying to members of the
public. The fact that one artist view his/her art in terms of surface
decoration and the other views it in terms of form does not make one better
than the other. The whole argument reminds me of the war in Gulliver's
Travels over which side of the egg to crack. As someone who has come to
working with clay after 20 years as an attorney, I find the elitism that
"wheel throwers" try to lord over "ceramicists" a waste of time and energy.
My personal observation is that those who work on the wheel generally do not
decorate their pots as well as those who view vessels as blank canvases.
There is certainly room for both points of view, and both type of pots in
shows. One is not more hand made than the other -- they are just different
technologies. I would think that the only truly hand made vessels are those
where the person digs his own clay and pinches it with his hands and fires it
in a fire that he built. Any other argument about just creates useless
noise.
Earl Brunner on thu 27 apr 00
Nope, don't agree..
And the fact that John or Mary Q Public might in fact NOT
understand the difference would precisely be the point of
the "makers" as opposed to the "decorators" The issue isn't
"better" it's "different", for most of us "makers". I don't
give a tinkers putoie about the argument that decorators
might decorate better than makers. Makes no difference to
the argument. The argument is about accurately representing
the work for what it is. It's about what the posted rules
and requirements and limitations are for a show. If work
doesn't qualify or meet the criteria it shouldn't even be
submitted. End of story. If the criteria for a show allow
non-handmade but hand decorated items no problem. Don't
misrepresent your work.
Interesting argument from an attorney.
But attorneys are good at that aren't they.
Barbara Schmidt wrote:
>
> ----------------------------Original message----------------------------
> The schism between those who work on the wheel and those cast their own molds
> or buy pre-bisqued pieces or greenware is mystifying to members of the
> public. The fact that one artist view his/her art in terms of surface
> decoration and the other views it in terms of form does not make one better
> than the other. The whole argument reminds me of the war in Gulliver's
> Travels over which side of the egg to crack. As someone who has come to
> working with clay after 20 years as an attorney, I find the elitism that
> "wheel throwers" try to lord over "ceramicists" a waste of time and energy.
> My personal observation is that those who work on the wheel generally do not
> decorate their pots as well as those who view vessels as blank canvases.
> There is certainly room for both points of view, and both type of pots in
> shows. One is not more hand made than the other -- they are just different
> technologies. I would think that the only truly hand made vessels are those
> where the person digs his own clay and pinches it with his hands and fires it
> in a fire that he built. Any other argument about just creates useless
> noise.
--
Earl Brunner
http://coyote.accessnv.com/bruec
mailto:bruec@anv.net
vince pitelka on thu 27 apr 00
> ----------------------------Original message----------------------------
> The schism between those who work on the wheel and those cast their own
molds
> or buy pre-bisqued pieces or greenware is mystifying to members of the
> public.
Not to any member of the public who understands handmade pots.
> The fact that one artist view his/her art in terms of surface
> decoration and the other views it in terms of form does not make one
better
> than the other.
It's not a question of better. It is a question of integrity and honesty
about what one is doing.
> As someone who has come to
> working with clay after 20 years as an attorney, I find the elitism that
> "wheel throwers" try to lord over "ceramicists" a waste of time and
energy.
There is no elitism. It is simply a question of being proud of the skills
one has attained, and determined to see those skills recognized and
respected for what they are. That is pretty simple. And potters are
ceramicists. Everyone who works with clay is a ceramicist.
> My personal observation is that those who work on the wheel generally do
not
> decorate their pots as well as those who view vessels as blank canvases.
This is a little silly. Potters often do not need to add additional
decoration. Now, if you take a skilled painter and challenge her/him to
decorate a pot, the chances are that you will get skilled painting on a pot.
But will it fit the pot? Will it work in symphony with the nuances of line
and form in the pot? Not necessarily. The potter, thoroughly understanding
those nuances, has a good chance of coming up with decoration which
gracefully embraces the pot.
> There is certainly room for both points of view, and both type of pots in
> shows. One is not more hand made than the other -- they are just
different
> technologies.
No, one is handmade, the other is not. It really is as simple as that.
> I would think that the only truly hand made vessels are those
> where the person digs his own clay and pinches it with his hands and fires
it
> in a fire that he built. Any other argument about just creates useless
> noise.
The above arguement is nothing other than useless noise.
- 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 thu 27 apr 00
At 01:27 PM 4/26/00 EDT, you wrote:
>----------------------------Original message----------------------------
>The schism between those who work on the wheel and those cast their own molds
>or buy pre-bisqued pieces or greenware is mystifying to members of the
>public. The fact that one artist view his/her art in terms of surface
>decoration and the other views it in terms of form does not make one better
>than the other.
Barbara, I think your distinction between the two ways of making leave out
a very important aspect of the question. Someone who decorates a piece
cast from a commercial mold is *only* concerned with surface decoration,
but a person who handforms a piece is concerned with both form and
surface-- and this is not only a more difficult task for the artist, but is
far more likely to yield a good synthesis of form and surface. Such works
are by their nature more powerful than works which employ clay as a canvas
and nothing more.
To say that there is no significant difference is to ignore a lot of
reality. And your view that china painters generally do a better job of
composing surface decorations than do studio potters seems mistaken to me.
A visit to your local ceramic shop should soon dispel this notion, since
most of the items of greenware purchased there and painted will use a
formulaic approach to decoration, devoid of originality and grace.
That's not to say that brilliant work cannot be done by artists using
slipcasting, because I've seen wonderful slipcast pots. But these artists
are a very small percentage of the folks who make clay objects in molds.
Ray
Aldridge Porcelain and Stoneware
http://www.goodpots.com
Kathryn L Farmer on fri 28 apr 00
There is nothing dishonest about doing slip cast work. If you claim that it
is a one of a kind when it is not, then that would be dishonest.
Kathryn
----- Original Message -----
From: "vince pitelka"
To:
Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2000 2:35 PM
Subject: Re: Jurying and Pots not made by the Artist
....
>
> > The fact that one artist view his/her art in terms of surface
> > decoration and the other views it in terms of form does not make one
> better
> > than the other.
>
> It's not a question of better. It is a question of integrity and honesty
> about what one is doing.
...
Kathryn L Farmer on fri 28 apr 00
Earl,
I agree 100% that work should not be misrepresented. I tried to state that
clearly in my viewpoint. I don't think that it is dishonest to turn a
slipcast piece into something beautiful and try to sell it. I do think that
it would, of course, be dishonest to claim that it is anything other than a
slipcast piece that was transformed in some fashion.
Vince's stance is that slipcast work is not "handmade" ever, period. I think
that there are exceptions to that viewpoint. Thus the dispute is over the
use of the term handmade. Also, I agree that artists should be honest about
how they create their work and let the jurors and public decide whether or
not they can be shown in the same show categorized separately. I don't think
that Barb was arguing that it's okay for slipcast work to be passed off as
something that it is not. I think that she is arguing that it can be
considered "handmade", but different; and if done well, an art form in it's
own right.
If I were to create a slipcast piece from start to finish (making the
prototype, mold, casting, cleaning greenware) that I spent six to twenty or
so hours painting to make it something that I considered beautiful, I would
be proud to enter it in a show. I would describe it as a slipcast piece that
I spent six to twenty hours or so painting, and would also call it handmade.
If I made just one and broke the mold, I would say so. If I made a thousand
of them I would say so (expecting each piece to be less valuable and not
necessarily "handmade" but definitely hand painted) It would be up to the
jurors to decide what sort of show they were having, and how to categorize
my work IF they wanted it at all.
Kathryn
----- Original Message -----
From: "Earl Brunner"
To:
Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2000 2:31 PM
Subject: Re: Jurying and Pots not made by the Artist
> ----------------------------Original message----------------------------
> Nope, don't agree..
> And the fact that John or Mary Q Public might in fact NOT
> understand the difference would precisely be the point of
> the "makers" as opposed to the "decorators" The issue isn't
> "better" it's "different", for most of us "makers". I don't
> give a tinkers putoie about the argument that decorators
> might decorate better than makers. Makes no difference to
> the argument. The argument is about accurately representing
> the work for what it is. It's about what the posted rules
> and requirements and limitations are for a show. If work
> doesn't qualify or meet the criteria it shouldn't even be
> submitted. End of story. If the criteria for a show allow
> non-handmade but hand decorated items no problem. Don't
> misrepresent your work.
> Interesting argument from an attorney.
> But attorneys are good at that aren't they.
>
> Barbara Schmidt wrote:
> >
> > ----------------------------Original message----------------------------
> > The schism between those who work on the wheel and those cast their own
molds
> > or buy pre-bisqued pieces or greenware is mystifying to members of the
> > public. The fact that one artist view his/her art in terms of surface
> > decoration and the other views it in terms of form does not make one
better
> > than the other. The whole argument reminds me of the war in Gulliver's
> > Travels over which side of the egg to crack. As someone who has come to
> > working with clay after 20 years as an attorney, I find the elitism that
> > "wheel throwers" try to lord over "ceramicists" a waste of time and
energy.
> > My personal observation is that those who work on the wheel generally do
not
> > decorate their pots as well as those who view vessels as blank canvases.
> > There is certainly room for both points of view, and both type of pots
in
> > shows. One is not more hand made than the other -- they are just
different
> > technologies. I would think that the only truly hand made vessels are
those
> > where the person digs his own clay and pinches it with his hands and
fires it
> > in a fire that he built. Any other argument about just creates useless
> > noise.
>
> --
> Earl Brunner
> http://coyote.accessnv.com/bruec
> mailto:bruec@anv.net
Earl Brunner on fri 28 apr 00
I'm still thinking on this and it occurs to me that for the
most part
the noise on this subject is usually either created by those
who do
not "handmake" their work and are trying to justify their
work. Or
it is by those who do handmake their who see those that do
not
misrepresenting at the worst, or just quietly trying to
slide
it by and hope the public won't know the difference. It's
not the
handmakers that are trying to get included in some other
category.
Earl Brunner wrote:
>
> ----------------------------Original message----------------------------
> Nope, don't agree..
> And the fact that John or Mary Q Public might in fact NOT
> understand the difference would precisely be the point of
> the "makers" as opposed to the "decorators" The issue isn't
> "better" it's "different", for most of us "makers". I don't
> give a tinkers putoie about the argument that decorators
> might decorate better than makers. Makes no difference to
> the argument. The argument is about accurately representing
> the work for what it is. It's about what the posted rules
> and requirements and limitations are for a show. If work
> doesn't qualify or meet the criteria it shouldn't even be
> submitted. End of story. If the criteria for a show allow
> non-handmade but hand decorated items no problem. Don't
> misrepresent your work.
> Interesting argument from an attorney.
> But attorneys are good at that aren't they.
>
> Barbara Schmidt wrote:
> >
> > ----------------------------Original message----------------------------
> > The schism between those who work on the wheel and those cast their own mold
> > or buy pre-bisqued pieces or greenware is mystifying to members of the
> > public. The fact that one artist view his/her art in terms of surface
> > decoration and the other views it in terms of form does not make one better
> > than the other. The whole argument reminds me of the war in Gulliver's
> > Travels over which side of the egg to crack. As someone who has come to
> > working with clay after 20 years as an attorney, I find the elitism that
> > "wheel throwers" try to lord over "ceramicists" a waste of time and energy.
> > My personal observation is that those who work on the wheel generally do not
> > decorate their pots as well as those who view vessels as blank canvases.
> > There is certainly room for both points of view, and both type of pots in
> > shows. One is not more hand made than the other -- they are just different
> > technologies. I would think that the only truly hand made vessels are those
> > where the person digs his own clay and pinches it with his hands and fires i
> > in a fire that he built. Any other argument about just creates useless
> > noise.
>
--
Earl Brunner
http://coyote.accessnv.com/bruec
mailto:bruec@anv.net
Earl Brunner on sat 29 apr 00
I agree in part. My point is that most shows define up
front what they
will or will not accept. The key here is , if they say
handmade and it
isn't handmade but is hand decorated (and the issue has
nothing to do with
how well it is made or how long it took to decorate) then
the peice doesn't qualify. It shouldn't even get to the
jury because it shouldn't have been sent in. On the other
hand as you say, a slipcaste peice that has been altered,
or a peice that has assembled slipcaste components of
original work does begin to cloud the issue and sending in
slides and explaining the process would allow the jurist to
decide. I don't have a problem if there is no
misrepresentation or intent to deceive.
Kathryn L Farmer wrote:
>
> ----------------------------Original message----------------------------
> Earl,
>
> I agree 100% that work should not be misrepresented. I tried to state that
> clearly in my viewpoint. I don't think that it is dishonest to turn a
> slipcast piece into something beautiful and try to sell it. I do think that
> it would, of course, be dishonest to claim that it is anything other than a
> slipcast piece that was transformed in some fashion.
>
> Vince's stance is that slipcast work is not "handmade" ever, period. I think
> that there are exceptions to that viewpoint. Thus the dispute is over the
> use of the term handmade. Also, I agree that artists should be honest about
> how they create their work and let the jurors and public decide whether or
> not they can be shown in the same show categorized separately. I don't think
> that Barb was arguing that it's okay for slipcast work to be passed off as
> something that it is not. I think that she is arguing that it can be
> considered "handmade", but different; and if done well, an art form in it's
> own right.
>
> If I were to create a slipcast piece from start to finish (making the
> prototype, mold, casting, cleaning greenware) that I spent six to twenty or
> so hours painting to make it something that I considered beautiful, I would
> be proud to enter it in a show. I would describe it as a slipcast piece that
> I spent six to twenty hours or so painting, and would also call it handmade.
> If I made just one and broke the mold, I would say so. If I made a thousand
> of them I would say so (expecting each piece to be less valuable and not
> necessarily "handmade" but definitely hand painted) It would be up to the
> jurors to decide what sort of show they were having, and how to categorize
> my work IF they wanted it at all.
>
> Kathryn
>
--
Earl Brunner
http://coyote.accessnv.com/bruec
mailto:bruec@anv.net
Don Jones on sat 29 apr 00
I agree 100% on this. when I first joined the list some 4 years ago I
witnessed some chicanery going on at Wendy's big thing in Philly. IMPLIED
MISREPRESENTATION BY ASSOCIATION is what I would call it. Years and years
of actual hand thrown and slab built forms have built up these prestigious
shows through the offices of ACC and Wendy's thing. This market is big and
the ones who want to cash in without doing the work or aquiring the
requisite skills take away from those who have. If you have an operation
using mass techniques employing people in the double digits then you are not
making work that should compete with clay artists trying to sell in these
markets.
Don Jones
http://www.highfiber.com/~claysky
----------
>From: Earl Brunner
>To: CLAYART@LSV.UKY.EDU
>Subject: Re: Jurying and Pots not made by the Artist
>Date: Fri, Apr 28, 2000, 3:55 PM
>
>----------------------------Original message----------------------------
>I'm still thinking on this and it occurs to me that for the
>most part
>the noise on this subject is usually either created by those
>who do
>not "handmake" their work and are trying to justify their
>work. Or
>it is by those who do handmake their who see those that do
>not
>misrepresenting at the worst, or just quietly trying to
>slide
>it by and hope the public won't know the difference. It's
>not the
>handmakers that are trying to get included in some other
>category.
vince pitelka on sat 29 apr 00
> Vince's stance is that slipcast work is not "handmade" ever, period. I
think
> that there are exceptions to that viewpoint. Thus the dispute is over the
> use of the term handmade.
Kathryn -
No, that is not Vince's statement. I did not say that a slipcast piece can
never be considered handmade. I did say that some artists slipcast
components to be assembled, or slipcast a basic shape which is then altered
or embellished, and that I have no problem with those situations. If the
work is slip cast, cleaned up, and then glazed, I do not think it should
ever be represented as handmade.
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/
vince pitelka on sat 29 apr 00
> ----------------------------Original message----------------------------
> There is nothing dishonest about doing slip cast work. If you claim that
it
> is a one of a kind when it is not, then that would be dishonest.
Kathryn -
To my knowledge, no one here ever implied that there was anything inherently
dishonest in slipcast work. I and several others simply said that it should
be represented as exactly what it is, so that the buyer can make up her/his
own mind. I have been very clear here that the issue is honesty to the
customer.
- 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/
| |
|
