David Hendley on fri 19 may 00
Hi Elizabeth, Well, I'm a bit surprised that anyone
is interested enough in this topic to want it to continue.
First of all, I am distressed that whenever I state my
opinion as to the definition of 'handmade', people
get extremely defensive and accuse me of having a
'sanctimonious, holier than thou attitude'. I am always
very careful to clearly state that I am making no value
judgments about work created by different methods,
just trying to give justifications to support my opinion:
'handmade' means 'hand' made, not 'mold' made. I will
admit, however, that my biases are not disguised, which
can make my examples sound judgmental.
Before I answer your questions, I'd also like to disagree
with Bruce, who contends that 'handmade' is defined
by 'the creative force contained within' the piece.
I understand what he is saying, but, again, in this
discussion, I'm not concerned with the 'value' of the
piece. In fact, he illustrates how a thoughtless
handthrown piece can have less meaning than a
thoughtfully created molded piece.
I don't know that I can confidently 'split hairs' concerning
specific processes and techniques. Like most things
in life, there are gray areas. In fact, I have struggled
with trying to define extruded pieces as handmade, or not.
Extruding can be a totally rigid process, where the form is
determined solely by the die (bricks, for example). Unless
the extrusion is altered, 2 of the 3 dimensions are not
variable, but since plastic clay is used in the process,
the extruded form can be dramatically altered into a unique
shape.
My extruded pots take longer to make than my thrown
pots, but they are indeed 'less handmade', in the sense
that I am starting with a defined and non-variable shape:
a shape determined by a die, not my hand. In throwing,
I start with 'nothing', form-wise, and there are no restraints,
except my skill, as to the form the clay can take.
Really, casting with molds is similar to extruding, in that
there are examples of the technique used to create standardized
assembly-line products as well as handmade objects. As I said
in the CM Comment on the subject, molded pieces that are cut,
twisted, or re-assembled are really being used as 'building
blocks' for creating a handmade work. Since molds define 3
static dimensions, compared to 2 for extruder dies, it just
makes it that much harder to 'break the mold' and alter a molded
piece to use it in a unique way. I do not consider most cast
pieces 'handmade', no matter the additions or decoration
because the basic, bare-bones form is used right out of the mold.
A hand formed piece with applied molded additions would
undoubtedly be 'handmade' in my book.
--
David Hendley
Maydelle, Texas
hendley@tyler.net
http://www.farmpots.com/
----- Original Message -----
From: priddy
To:
Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2000 4:08 PM
Subject: specific question for David and Jonathon-re: standards
For David and Jonathan,
I would like to ask you both:
Are David's extruded pots less handmade than his thrown bowls?
(Their affect is similar, due to the subsequent processing)
And conversely
If Jonathon applied his molded pieces and parts to a core of a
handthrown cylinder, would that be hand made enough to call handmade?
(The pots base essence would be "thrown")
I realize this is splitting hairs, but it is a hair interesting
enough to split...and you both appear to be capable...
And I am not instigating trouble, I would really like to know
each of your spins on these two questions. And anyone else's
who has seen both their work-only respond to this if you have
taken the time to familiarize yourself with the two products.
This is a specific topic, not to pick on either of them, but to
get a concrete image instead of all this vague debate. And I
nominate them because I think they are both capable of dealing with
the criticism objectively. (I would suggest my work, but it is
fairly self-evident where it lies, so it is not a good example)
You seem unable to not argue about it, and I am incapable of
not reading the thread, so I might as well be satisfied as well.
Thanks for taking the time...and for those uninterested in this
thread, stop reading it!!
Thank you, if you are willing, and sorry to have stuck my nose in
if you think this makes it too personal and would prefer to not
go here.
EP
Jonathan Kaplan wrote:
> Good Morning David:
>
> And you have got me, again! I think, that we are both right, in fact, I
> think everyone on the list is right
> in fact everyone is right and no one is wrong. (There is a case for the
> ethics of relativism, only kidding, though)
>
> >Jonathan, like you, I also didn't want to get sucked into
> >this again, but, doggone it, you've got me. I just have
> >to comment on your assertion that that your slipcast
> >pottery is as "handmade" as it gets (quote below).
>
> Yes my pottery is handmade. And within my context, it is was, and will be
> as handmade as yours. But I really don't care to argue this. Just don't
> lecture me on what you think my work is or is not!
>
> I think that where we differ is the definintion of what exactly is
> handmade. Having met you, talked with you, I know that everything about
you
> is about handmade, according to your definition of handmade. Never once
> doubted it. And I think that within the context, your context, the
> definination of handmade works for you. But we need to pay particular
> attention to the context.
> >
> >I'll tell you what's not handmade about it.
>
> Oh please!!!! No one on this list needs a lecture, especially me, but
I'll
> induldge you because I for one would never assert such a claim towards a
> colleague in any way shape or form. But I'm a nice guy......
>
> >You designed and made the molds.
>
> I also made the originals.
>
> >So, the molds are
> >handmade. But that's where it ends. A piece you cast
> >on Thursday will be the same as one you cast on
> >Monday, even if you "touch" every piece. The piece you
> >cast 3 weeks from yesterday will still be the same.
> >That's kind of the whole point of making a mold, isn't it?
> >If one of your workers, rather than you personally, pours
> >the mold, guess what, it will still be the same.
>
> Yes, the pieces I make on Monday will be the same as the ones made Friday.
> My employees don't cast my work. I do. Each part is slip cast and then
> assembled into larger more complex forms. In fact, the 25 vase/goblet
> assemblies that I finished this week are all built from parts cast from
the
> same molds, in fact, these molds cast parts I used last year and the year
> before and the year before.But the assembled works are all different. In
my
> context, and only my context, my work is handmade and I will continue to
> assert that, anything to the contrary doesn't apply. I don't have a line
> of slip cast tableware that I sell at shows. If I did, these pieces would
> e same day after day, whether I cast them or my employees do. These, I
> would agree with you, are slip cast, they are not hand made. But it is not
> an issue for me. Again, a question of context, and this is where we
differ.
> It is precisely the context , and within that context that we are
confusing
> the issue. We have confused the context. And when Tony C asserts that he
is
> more of a potter and I am less of a potter, it reeks of a sanctimonious
> holier than though attitude that is on the same level as they myriad forms
> of religious fundamentalism/extremism. In his context he can be God's
gift
> to the pottery world and present his work as the mac daddy of pottery. If
> he and everyone else in that context want to call themselves Shoji Junior
> be my guest and I will not quabble or criticize. It is preciscly because I
> understand thet context within which he works. And the same applies to you
> and your work. Totally handmade from the get go. Within your context. No
> better, no worse. Not any more of a potter and not any less.
> >
> >Contrast that to a potter throwing on a potter's wheel.
> >The first couple of pieces of the day will probably be
> >a little small, or large, or wide, until the potter "gets the
> >feel" of what he's doing. If he stayed up too late the night
> >before drinking Jack Daniels, the pots might even be a
> >bit wobbly. If another person is hired to throw, the pieces
> >will be different, even if they are the same size and shape.
>
> Thats true and I agree. But lets not define within rigid parameters that
> the wheel and slab roller, the potter or that potter's hired throwers are
> the de facto defining entities that attribute worth or lack of worth, the
> efficacy of the work, because this too is blatenly wrong and again, reeks
> of a sanctimonious and holier than thou attitude.
>
> >
> >The potter is always subtlety but constantly "designing" his
> >pot. Even if he is attempting to produce a standard line of ware,
> >the work will be continually evolving.
>
> This does not make it better. Its just another way of working.
>
> >Your design work ended
> >the moment you made your mold. It's dead.
>
> Please no lectures. This is just not ture. If you took the time to look
> at my work, it is far from dead and continues to explore the same themes
in
> many many different ways, all changing and all different. What I make is
> not a standard line of ware. Please let's not make assumptions and
> accusations without doing the research.
>
> >The throwingpotter's design is living and changing and being refined.
>
> So what? My designs are also changing and being refined. Different ways of
> working in different contexts. You attribute posititve or negative values
> based on the means of making the work. Without regard to the context and
> without regard to what is done with the work afterwards. The means of
> making the work, IMHO has nothing to do with the value of the work.
> Contrast to the early Art Potteries in this country. Work was cast and
> jiggered, pressed too. Some of this work has endured and will continue to
> endure as magnificent statements of design and value of the potter's art.
> No one ever questioned their means of manufacturing and how their pots
were
> executed. And those potteries, like yours and mine, developed out of a
> tradition of pottermaking. Also I don't think that our pottery ancestors
in
> China gave a rats ass about making bisque molds for impressed decoration.
> These pieces still endue, still have value, and will continue to have
value
> when your pots and my pots are part of some landfill somewhere.
>
> >Here's a music analogy:
> >Is Karaoke live music?
> >I say no. The song will be the same length every time, it
> >will have the same tempo, the guitar lead will always be the
> >same. Just like your cast piece will always have the same
> >dimensions.
> >Even if the singer "designed" the accompaniment tape,
> >played the instruments, and recorded the tape, it's still not
> >live, or "handmade" music, because it is the same every
> >time.
>
> Karaoke is live music if you are sitting there and listening, but it is
far
> from original.
>
>
>
> >This subject is not about money to me. Not at all.
> >It's also not about design. It's not about valuing work made
> >by one method more than that made by another method.
> >It's simply about the definition of a word: "handmade".
> >I think the word, like many in our society, has been
> >increasingly more liberally defined until it is practically
> >meaningless.
>
>
> And all of these issues enter into the arguement. They are inseparable
from
> one another.
> The word handmade for you has not lost its meaning and is present in your
> life on a day to day basis. I saw your slide presentation in Denver/NCECA
> and was incredibly impressed. It has not lost its meaning for you. For me,
> it has alsonot lost its meaining, Is it more liberally defined? Yes. My
> pottery paradigm changes continuously. It still has its meaning and I am
> pleased, on a daily basis to push this envelope, having discarded the
> pottery blinders that so many espouse to wear. For me, there is no pottery
> dogma. Call me a liberal, but I would rather be criticized and bashed as a
> pottery liberal than a pottery fundamentalist.
>
> And yes, this is a matter of context and definition, and you know, as I am
> sure you do, that it with the utmose of respect that I reply to you post.
> And towards your work and your ways of working.
>
> And I also know, I hope, that the same respect is accored me. I know it
is.
>
> Respectfully,
>
>
> Jonathan
>
> Jonathan Kaplan
> Ceramic Design Group LTd/Production Services
> PO Box 775112
> Steamboat Springs, CO 80477
> (970) 879-9139 voice and fax
> http://www.sni.net/ceramicdesign
>
> UPS: 1280 13th St. Unit13
> Steamboat Springs, CO 80487
>
>
____________________________________________________________________________
__
> Send postings to clayart@lsv.ceramics.org
>
> You may look at the archives for the list or change your subscription
> settings from http://www.ceramics.org/clayart/
>
> Moderator of the list is Mel Jacobson who may be reached at
melpots@pclink.com.
respectfully submitted,
elizabeth priddy
priddy-clay@usa.net
http:www.angelfire.com/nc/clayworkshop
____________________________________________________________________
Get free email and a permanent address at http://www.netaddress.com/?N=1
____________________________________________________________________________
__
Send postings to clayart@lsv.ceramics.org
You may look at the archives for the list or change your subscription
settings from http://www.ceramics.org/clayart/
Moderator of the list is Mel Jacobson who may be reached at
melpots@pclink.com.
Lee Love on sat 20 may 00
----- Original Message -----
From: David Hendley
| Since molds define 3
| static dimensions, compared to 2 for extruder dies, it just
| makes it that much harder to 'break the mold' and alter a molded
| piece to use it in a unique way.
This depends upon the type of mold work David. The square plates made at
the workshop I am studying at are pressed into a plaster mold. The
front/inside surface of the plate is formed into the mold by hand and does
not touch plaster. There are impressions made into the front surface that
is done by hand. In a sense, only 2 dimensions are defined.
Anyway, making distinctions between mold work and extruded work,
IMHO, is splitting hairs. As long as work is not being passed off for what
it isn't, forget the technique and let the work speak for itself. Creative
people seem terminally unable to speak about their work better than the work
can speak for itself. It is the rare person who can come near doing
justice to the work itself.
--
Lee Love
2858-2-2 , Nanai , Mashiko-machi ,Tochigi-ken 321-4106 JAPAN
Ikiru@kami.com Voice Mail and Faxes (a USA number): (303) 256-0374
| |
|
