clennell on sun 29 oct 00
the thought of a coffee or tea mug with a handle big enough to put all your
fingers into gives me the dry heaves. Junkyard Dawg would say puke. We
Canucks are more polite.
A coffee mug does not require a fist full of fingers to lift. A tankard of
ale, perhaps. A cider jug, most definitely.
The Green giant with the huge hands should be able to pick up a coffee cup
with one finger provided the potter left room for two.
these fist full of handles are unnecessary projections. they make a good
pot look bad. I usually comment " Nice cup on that handle".
Cheers,
Tony
P>S I only rant to keep Tom Wirt from getting sleepy with potter's knod.
sour cherry pottery
tony and sheila clennell
4545 king street
beamsville, on.L0R 1B1
www.sourcherrypottery.com
Cindy Strnad on sun 29 oct 00
Okay, Tony.
You have a right to your opinion. Nice cup on that handle. I hate
handles that stick out like big floppy ears, but I don't argue with
customers who want a generous handle. I just make the cup (mug) big enough
for the handle, and keep the handle close enough to the cup. So they should
be able to use a small handle. They *can* use a small handle. Been doing it
for years. But they like a big handle. It pleases them, brings them
enjoyment. They like the way it feels.
Heck, I'll stick my neck out. I like the way it feels. Cool and smooth and
substantial, next to the warm body of the cup. I like it. It pleases me, and
I'm "just" a girl with girl-sized hands.
And after all, what's the point of having a handmade cup? You can get
cheaper cups at Wal-Mart that will do the job just fine. You can get
Styrofoam ones that you don't even have to wash. The point is the pleasure
it brings you. So I say there is room enough for every sort of handle and
every kind of cup.
Cindy Strnad
Earthen Vessels Pottery
RR 1, Box 51
Custer, SD 57730
USA
earthenv@gwtc.net
http://www.earthenvesselssd.com
Paul Taylor on mon 30 oct 00
Dear Tony and All
>Tony wrote I usually comment " Nice cup on that handle".
This sort of statement is not acceptable on Clayart . Criticizing spelling
is one thing but leaving the sycophantic communal back slapping and syrupy
comfort that we all enjoy to make an esthetic comment is asking to be at
best flamed at worst have all your fingers chopped off.
Well I am a little bored to day so I have sandbagged the drive up to the
workshop and put me tin hat on, ready to make enemies.
SO Here goes
I agree with Tony that There is a sense of proportion to every thing. I
also reject the conceptual argument that dog dirt only tastes and looks
disgusting because we think it does That those of higher intellect would not
see it in such limited terms and eat it for breakfast. If the handle doesn't
balance the mug I think its bad . If the handle can not decide weather it
follows the form or is attached to the form I also think that looks bad.
also
Have you noticed that every potter since the stone age from every
tradition always made thieir shapes convex - apart from the very late
twentieth century and then only in Europe and America. if there was
concavity in any shape it was reflective of nature and the smaller part of
the form, eg the neck of a vase . I doubt if it was that concave shapes
didn't occur to any body for five millenia but that our ancestors found that
concave shapes do not reflect the harmony of nature, which ninety nine
point nine percent of the time builds up the natural world with positive
convex shapes.
The problem could be our illusory search for freedom of expression and
freedom from any authority . I feel that what passes as creativity is now
the following of some one else's reaction. Done once it was interesting but
concave shapes done to death are mean and cold.
Another little rule was that in most sculpture and ceramics -unless an
eccentric point of interest is being made- the Attachments to a form were
made either in compleat harmony with the form or stuck to the form as an
attachment . Wether you consider one above the other is beside my point, the
two idioms were never mixed on the same form. Some potters can make an
interesting play on this rule but most do not know what I am talking about.
So why stir it up
I think the day of the professional potter is as dead as the acceptance or
help of tradition. There are no shoulders to stand on in this age of
personality. There are economic pressures that force most craftsmen and
artists to have paying jobs, teaching art if you are lucky. What this piece
of forced egalitay means is that every body needs to start asking hard
questions of their work and not be distracted by fancy techniques or
illusions of originality. An awful pot is only partly rescued by a Japanese
climbing kiln.
You are relying on the ignorance of our society and/or good marketing
subsidized by the day job to sell such pots. Just because you are making a
living does not mean you are making worth while pottery. The opposite could
be argued better. Making a living forces you to make bad pots to make money
or get a part time job and make "interestingly" worse pots.
I have made some bad pottery in the past which I regret and even now I
make compromises which could be unnecessary. I feel if I keep going with
constant reevaluation that one day a potter, who was not luky enough to be
born with exceptional talent, will one day grow it.
Arguing esthetics can make the blood letting of a spelling thread look
like paint ball. We can all do damage to frail egos in a "modern" society
that lacks so much community. I am wondering if it is worth it . SO TAKE THE
RETORICK AS A BIT OF FUN IT WAS WRITTEN IN LAUGHTER but the points are
serious, so feel free to disagree.
I am free for you to change my mind. The freedom I worked hardest for.
Regards from Paul Taylor
http://www.anu.ie/westportpottery
PS Warning after reading my posts English teachers and grammarians may need
a vallium.
> From: clennell
> Reply-To: Ceramic Arts Discussion List
> Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2000 03:40:32 +0100
> To: CLAYART@LSV.CERAMICS.ORG
>
Subject: cup on a handle
> I usually comment " Nice cup on that handle".
> Cheers,
> Tony
>
sour cherry pottery
> tony and sheila clennell
> 4545 king street
> beamsville, on.L0R 1B1
> www.sourcherrypottery.com
>
Cindy Strnad on mon 30 oct 00
Hi, Paul.
No, not vallium. It's *Valium*. One "l", capitol letter, as it's a
patented, trademarked product. Okay? (Just to make sure you understand, as
these things don't always come through in print as they would in person, I'm
only giving you a hard time--teasing)
Not all forms in nature are convex. Take the tall, and oft times concave
form of a deciduous tree, for example, or the body of a woman, or the union
of stalagmite and stalagmite. Concave shapes are rarer than convex, but this
does not make them ungenerous or mean. They can be graceful and beautiful,
like the neck of a wild goose or a shock of wheat.
To say that one shape is naturally superior to another is short-sighted and
just plain silly. Yes, concave shapes are a poor choice for many uses. You
wouldn't want a concave mixing bowl, for example. If capacity for size is
important to your piece, then concave isn't the choice for you.
I suspect capacity and practicality are the real root causes behind convex
forms in history. You will see concave forms in candlesticks and pillars,
but not in many forms designed to hold water or grain or yams or wine. That
only makes sense, doesn't it? Most of my forms are convex simply because a
convex shape makes the most sense for them. However, there is nothing wrong
with a well-done concave shape so long as that shape is appropriate to the
piece it is used on.
I very much prefer a convex shape for the mind of a man, however. If one is
going to be broad-minded about spelling and grammar, let's not spoil it by
being narrow-minded about pottery forms.
Cindy Strnad
Earthen Vessels Pottery
RR 1, Box 51
Custer, SD 57730
USA
earthenv@gwtc.net
http://www.earthenvesselssd.com
Janet Kaiser on mon 30 oct 00
Tony C. is a cuppa snob!
Is it his Victorian genes outing...? Can
remember my grandmothers teaching me how to hold
a cup... One insisting the pinkie should be held
aloft and the other saying not. Very confusing.
Even if he is a "polite Canuk", he's a cup
dictator! Who can say how many fingers a person
needs to hold a cup? Anyone who has burned the
back of their fingers trying to hold a
clever-clever mug will know it hurts. And until
God makes us all the same or we are genetically
modified to fit all cups and mugs, I vote for
big handles on big cups...
Janet -as one mug to another- Kaiser
The Chapel of Art . Capel Celfyddyd
HOME OF THE INTERNATIONAL POTTERS' PATH
Criccieth LL52 0EA, GB-Wales Tel: (01766) 523570
E-mail: postbox@the-coa.org.uk
WEBSITE: http://www.the-coa.org.uk
----- Original Message -----
> the thought of a coffee or tea mug with a
handle big enough to put all your
> fingers into gives me the dry heaves.
Junkyard Dawg would say puke. We
> Canucks are more polite.
> A coffee mug does not require a fist full of
fingers to lift. A tankard of
> ale, perhaps. A cider jug, most definitely.
> The Green giant with the huge hands should be
able to pick up a coffee cup
> with one finger provided the potter left room
for two.
> these fist full of handles are unnecessary
projections. they make a good
> pot look bad. I usually comment " Nice cup on
that handle".
> Cheers,
> Tony
ZALT@AOL.COM on mon 30 oct 00
To All:
Last year we discussed the mug. I have put the results on a web page. It is
located at: http://members.xoom.com/Zalt57/
The site is a free one so there may be times that it is not working. All I
can suggest is to keep trying. The article is called "A mug is a mug is a
mug".
I believe we discussed handles.
Terrance
Suzanne Wolfe on mon 30 oct 00
On Mon, 30 Oct 2000, Paul Taylor wrote:
> Have you noticed that every potter since the stone age from every
> tradition always made thieir shapes convex - apart from the very late
> twentieth century and then only in Europe and America. if there was
> concavity in any shape it was reflective of nature and the smaller part of
> the form, eg the neck of a vase . I doubt if it was that concave shapes
> didn't occur to any body for five millenia but that our ancestors found that
> concave shapes do not reflect the harmony of nature, which ninety nine
> point nine percent of the time builds up the natural world with positive
> convex shapes.
Paul,
Sorry to disagree with you, but there were significant types of convex
forms made prior to the 20th century. The Italian drug jars
(albarelli; albarello (singular)), were mostly convex, and for the
specific reason that they allowed the fingers to slip in between the forms
when they were lined up on shelves, so easier to pick them up. These
forms were very popular and important during the 16th and 17th
centuries. I also recall some very elegant Chinese Qing Dynasty convex
forms, and they were also frequently exported to the West and mounted in
gold-plated brass as part of a garniture.
I am sure some others will come up with other examples.
Regards,
Suzanne Wolfe
iandol on tue 31 oct 00
Dear Paul
Come off it
>concave shapes do not reflect the harmony of nature, which ninety =
ninepoint nine percent of the time builds up the natural world with =
positive convex shapes.<
Every spiral I have ever seen in the natural world, be it a common snail =
shell, the tendril of a vine or the probocis of a moth exhibits both =
positive and negative curves, convex on the outside and concave on the =
inside. Round, convex pebbles and boulders wear concavities in river =
beds.
I bet your Still is convex outside, polished bright to give you fair =
reflections. But without the con-cavity the spirit would never distil.
Cheers,
Ivor
John Baymore on tue 31 oct 00
An awful pot is only partly rescued by a Japanese climbing kiln.
No....it is still an awful pot. And it wasted the huge potential of the
valuable climbing kiln space.
Glaze, nor the blessings of wood flame can "rescue" a poor form.
Best,
...........................john
"who still after all these years occasionally tries to prove the above
though wrong. It never works ."
John Baymore
River Bend Pottery
22 Riverbend Way
Wilton, NH 03086 USA
603-654-2752 (s)
800-900-1110 (s)
JBaymore@compuserve.com
John.Baymore@GSD-CO.com
"DATES SET: Earth, Water, and Fire Noborigama Woodfiring Workshop =
August 17-26, 2001"
Lee Love on tue 31 oct 00
----- Original Message -----
From: Cindy Strnad
> only makes sense, doesn't it? Most of my forms are convex simply because a
> convex shape makes the most sense for them.
Vases are often best concaved: the bouquet spreads out at the top
and the end of the stems angle out at the bottom.
--
Lee Love
Mashiko JAPAN Ikiru@kami.com
Share Photos of your Akitas:
subscribe-akita-g@egroups.com
Help ET phone Earth: http://setiathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/
Paul Taylor on wed 1 nov 00
> Hi, Paul.
>
> To say that one shape is naturally superior to another is short-sighted and
> just plain silly. Yes, concave shapes are a poor choice for many uses. You
> wouldn't want a concave mixing bowl, for example. If capacity for size is
> important to your piece, then concave isn't the choice for you.
> Cindy Strnad
Dear Cindy, Suzanne, Lee love and all.
I will take your point about the concave shapes and go back to the
thinking board.
To reiterate my intention ; I accept Mels list of standards, but I think
more can be said.
I was being simplistic about the concave shapes because I was mistakenly
mixing two separate issues .
The first thing that makes me distrust the concave form is that most
beginners including myself went through that same stages. After making a
series of ashtrays the beginner tries to make a bellied form with a wobble
at the top. I have never worked out whether its a Ming vase or a jug, and I
am too polite to ask . Then I say lets stick to a simple mug, now that your
getting good, and low and behold out comes the concave cylinder. I have a
sneaking suspicion that the mug is concave not because the student can not
make a straight one, but because the student feels this is a more creative
shape "different".
Students go on to acquire all the skills necessary to make a small living
making pots . Sadly some are still left with the esthetic awareness they
first arrived with. Making the wobbly jug shape and the concave shape under
the strange illusion they are being, modern, creative and original. The next
strange thing is that although loads of others have gone through the same
process coming out equally, modern, creative and different in exactly the
same way making the same concave mugs, the contradictions never occur to
them. Also they do not seem to realize that they are trying to make the most
difficult sculptural forms a potter has to deal with. A less demanding shape
may allow them to improve a lot quicker.
This leads to the next .
Ironically . The mug that was sent to me in the mug exchange is concave
but it never struck me as such. What makes the concave shape that my mug
exchange partner sent to me not! pinched, clod ,contrived, and impractical?
If you look at a Daffodil ( It's not spring so you will have to take my
word for it) you will notice that the line from the base of the flower to
the top is not just a concave curve but a wave that goes out convexly from
the base and then forms into a concave line then into a tight concave form
at the top where the petals roll over.
Similarly the mug I received is not a simple geometric line it starts off
from the bottom slightly concave but bends out into a slow convex line and
finishes at the rim with a slight concavity - nice to drink from. So
although the form is essentially concave there is a felling of growth
throughout the whole form. She has augmented this by distorting the form
from the inside to make a decoration. Or, as very succinctly expressed by a
fellow clayarter the pot breathes.
There are other ways of giving a felling of warm wholeness ,Internal
vigor, to a concave shape but they all require skill and subtly. some
concave shapes will infer a positive shape around them like the vase Lee
mentioned.
Unfortunately many concave forms do not have a sense of life because the
potter can not see that there is art beyond the idea and Immaculate
craftsmanship.
I do not think my suggestions of a standard are for stone but as a
guideline for beginners. They are things to be aware of and to consider.
There are more. I would like to hear a few myself especially to do with
surface line and color.
-------------
So far
Keep it simple . You get good quicker ( said by Martin Hays a
traditional Irish musician. If you have heard him play. I need say no more).
Simplicity shows off subtly.
Do not put too many intentions into a pot. Have one main idea at a time
beware of putting too many ideas of the same weight into the same pot. Keep
the whole thing well orchestrated
Make the attachments follow the form or looking separate from the form
mixing the two does not work well.
Keep the language the same throughout the pot do not put a light looking
handle on one side of a pot and a heavy looking spout on the other unless
you are making a definite statement by doing so.
Be very attentive to the proportions of a pot and it's attachments - the
rules of composition apply a much to pots as paintings . Painters have it
easy they only have two dimentions to worry about.
If you are leaving the comfort of practicality the image better be strong
enough to carry the pot through. If you are a beginner a strong image hides
a multitude of sins.
Elegance has nothing to do with thinness of walls it is all to do with
proportion. A tall thin shape may be a safer bet or elegance but shorter
more practical shapes may be just as elegant especially to an audience that
is not expecting elegance from a short shape.
A feeling of growth is important. Look at nature, every thing expands
from the inside. This is the most difficult subtly to understand . Some have
it naturally - the world is so unjust. Once you mastered a sense of growth
you are up there with the best. I am sure anything can be learned . How to
get it apart from awareness and practice I do not know. Looking and drawing
from nature helps. You can see that rounded forms and small bases give a lot
of growth to a pot and elegance until they fall over.
Have warm confidence this makes the pots look relaxed yet poised. Is it
personality or and practice that does that? I am not sure? I method act a
little - it sometimes works. On this one do as I say not as I sometimes do.
Years of practice helps . Which means throwing a lot of pots. So don't be
parsimonious make flowerpots and sell them cheap until you can make any
thing with ease. Nothing kills any art more than hesitant accuracy.
Some people will think that creativity and self expression take precedent
over standards such as the above. I think these standards are part of
creativity. Much of the best art comments on these standards even if the
rules are stretched as part of discovery or to create a visual or emotional
point.
I am off to look at Terrances mug. I am impressed at his courage . I don't
think I would let any vultures :) pick over my work by invitation.
Regards from Paul Taylor
http://www.anu.ie/westportpottery
Lee Love on wed 1 nov 00
----- Original Message -----
From: Paul Taylor
> Dear Cindy, Suzanne, Lee love and all.
>
> I will take your point about the concave shapes and go back to the
> thinking board.
Paul, I posted this message to the Mingei list earlier today. You might
enjoy the story at the end:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The little discussion on ClayArt, about Shimaoka and "what is Mingei" is
what inspired me to start this list.
I'll write more about this later, but want to just mention them
briefly. One of the books Jean brought back for me from St. Paul after
she closed our studio/loft there, was a collection of poems and an essay
by/about Kanjiro Kawaii, one of the original artist/craftsmen in the
original
Mingei group. This booklet was available at the Kawaii museum in Kyoto.
All of the initial Mingei group were intimately familiar with
Zen and its philosophy. Kawaii often talks about "discovering the
unknown potter within." For him, a Mingei approach to creativity is
similar to Zen's quest for "original nature", or the uncomplicated, natural
man who dwells within the intellectual/educated man. The terminology that
Yanagi
uses, Jiriki (self power) and Tariki (other power) are simply two different
vehicles for discovering "original nature", or Kawaii's "unknown craftsman
within."
Kawaii understood that a modern educated person could overcome his
complicated psyche, to get back to a simpler, more primal source for
creativity. I believe that both Shoji Hamada and Shiko Munakata were
modern, educated people who were able to tap into "the unknown craftsman
within."
Another book Jean brought back for me was a collection of essays on
Mingei from the Mingeikan in Tokyo. They are all in english or translated
into English. Warren MacKenzie has an essay in it. His term that I
see as being similar to Kawaii's Unknown Craftsman Within, is "Mingei
Spirit." This is the term he uses for artists/craftsmen who are inspired
by Mingei and Mingei principles. I believe that Warren MacKenzie is an
example of a successfully inspired artist/craftsman, operating through
"Mingei Spirit."
Today, Fukiyan (the retired foreman, who makes all the mold made
things at Shimaoka's pottery) sat over beside one of the senior apprentices,
Okada-san, and was watching him pull handles for concaved mugs that are
decorated with rope impressed inlay. Fukiyan sprang up, and went to the
corner of the workshop, where his workstation is, hopped up on the platform
and rummage through his equipment on the wareboards above his wheel. He
pulled out a tall concave shaped mug, and brought it over to show all us
apprentices. It was obvious that Okada-san, who has been there over 3
years, had never noticed the mug before. Fukiyan said that it was made by
Shoji Hamada, and it was "damned heavy!" and that made everyone laugh. He
also pointed out a chip on the lip and Mitsuyan (the current foreman) said,
"Yeah, it'd be worth a bundle if it weren't for that chip!" Props like
this mug help me understand the stories being told, because my Japanese,
while growing, is minimal.
Anyway, the whole point of Fukiyan hauling this mug out for us,
filled with throwing sticks, knives and trimming tools, was so that we knew
that Shimaoka Sensei didn't come up with the form out of the clear blue sky.
He was influenced by his teacher, Hamada...
--
Lee Love
Mashiko JAPAN Ikiru@kami.com
Interested in Folkcraft? Signup:
Subscribe: mingei-subscribe@egroups.com
Or: http://www.egroups.com/group/mingei
Help ET phone Earth: http://setiathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/
DEBBYGrant@AOL.COM on wed 1 nov 00
Ivor,
You are so right about your observations on concave versus convex. I
was personally mystified by this whole thread because I always see
the concave inner space as well as the convex outer space and vice
versa.
Thanks for your post,
Debby Grant in NH
Paul Taylor on sat 4 nov 00
> From: DEBBYGrant@AOL.COM
> Reply-To: Ceramic Arts Discussion List
> Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2000 17:32:36 EST
> To: CLAYART@LSV.CERAMICS.ORG
> Subject: Re: Cup on a handle
>
>
>
> You are so right about your observations on concave versus convex. I
> was personally mystified by this whole thread because I always see
> the concave inner space as well as the convex outer space and vice
> versa.
I am interested to know : is craft just simply hand executed design or
does the human give "more" to it? Can this "more" be improved on and
discussed? Do other teachers and potters discuss form and composition with
their students and what position do they take ?. Would students and
beginners like to discuss such things and how much criticism should be given
and how much taken? Do we follow fashion and tradition and the only real
choice is between influences and traditions? Is total originality an
illusion? Is individuality a piece of propaganda that does
not stand up to measurement?
Dear Debie
You are right to be confused about this post it was added to by a
confused but booze free mind - my own.
I muddled the issue some what by criticizing the concave shape it was
quickly pointed out to me and quite rightly as you so clearly see yourself
that a shape can not be judged in that way. Although I still think it a
shape abused by "creativity".
After further muddled thought I decided that the Issue I am concerned
with is the fashion and cliche that students and potters are following. A
bad style that has become common almost traditional . And I have chosen not
to like it or the philosophy that drives it. I believe that many people feel
that esthetic standards have become care less and decadent. The terms I use
have been propagandized as reactionary.
But rather than slag off pots that I come across I prefer to talk
abstractly - even that can cause an emotive response.
All of us in the west are robbed of an esthetic tradition that's why
some of us go to japan to work where you can stand on the shoulders of the
many that follow esthetic standards that go back a over a thousand years and
absorb the truths through example.
Westerners have had the line fractured by industrial capitalism and
most of us are not available to study in Japan.
However. A Tie chie master Yang Jwing Ming said that westerners have one
great advantage over the more traditional ways of thinking in that they can
make and read maps . So I added to this thread, in this way, in an attempt
to discover and map esthetic rules; not to be bound by them but to be free -
Rumplestilskin. If some do not think they are relevant there is no need to
bother with them. Pottery is a hobby for most and they have a right to make
any sort of pots. But for those interested I enjoy the intellectual pursuit
and believe it is a good substitute for going to Japan.
As a map maker I will get lost on occasions ,make mistakes, have to take
risks and get flamed. But I and fellow explorers will not be following
blindly an evening class/educationalist tradition under the illusion we are
free thinkers.
Fixing crazing and the exchange of tecnical info is great , racoons and
haggis need their day.
I am interested to know : is craft just simply hand executed design or
does the human give "more" to it? Can this "more" be improved on and
discussed?
Do other teachers and potters discuss form and composition with their
students and friends and what position do they take ?. Would students and
beginners like to discuss such things and how much criticism should be given
and how much taken? Do we follow fashion and tradition and the only real
choice is between influences and traditions? Is total originality an
illusion? Is individuality a piece of propaganda an illusion that does
not stand up to measurement?
OR do you think thats giving blood ?
Regards from Paul Taylor
http://www.anu.ie/westportpottery
PS See reply to cindy for map
Cindy Strnad on sat 4 nov 00
Hi, Paul.
Thanks for your kind words about my web page. I'm looking at yours
in-between writing this. You may consider that half-moon pot on the front
page one of your "enfants terribles" but I love it. I wish I knew
how to get that kind of clean lines in my work--one day I'll figure it out.
I tend to be very imprecise. It's in my personality and I've elected not to
fight it for now.
I'll respond to a small part of your post because it regards something I've
thought about a great deal. No, I don't believe there's any room, nor any
reason to seek absolute originality in art or craft. I believe that all
great art is derivative in some sense. If it weren't, how would any of us
relate to it? And if no one can relate to it, then what good is it?
Art is supposed to make us feel, think, interact. I cannot interact with a
what's-it that has no appeal of design to me. If it has appeal, that will
happen because it relates to me in some way (maybe only through its lines,
texture, color, etc), even if I don't understand what idea or form it
actually represents.
In order for it to relate to me, there must be some link of familiarity. If
there is a link of familiarity, then the piece is derivative. I don't mean
the artist lacks creativity, but merely that she has been influenced by the
same environment that influences me.
Cindy Strnad
Earthen Vessels Pottery
RR 1, Box 51
Custer, SD 57730
USA
earthenv@gwtc.net
http://www.earthenvesselssd.com
| |
|
