primalmommy@IVILLAGE.COM on sat 31 mar 01
At this stage in my pottery career, the only thing I am an expert on is amateurish form. How to make it, mostly.
I recently had a chance to wander alone through an empty ceramics studio at the toledo museum of art, looking at fascinating works in progress on the shelves.
Here's what I think I noticed, untrained as my eye might be. Student work in which the basics of the craft had not yet been mastered, but in which students had skipped to the next step. Dog-dish bottoms on beginnerish wheel thrown vessels, for example, to which interesting/arty things had been done, the kinds of things which, done well, would grace ceramics mags. I kept seeing it in different students' work; maybe students who considered the craftsmanship sufficient to move on, or who were "artifying" their work in apology -- or as camoflage for -- a lack of skills at the craft. To draw the eye from the flaws in the original pot.
It makes me wonder about the external expectations of an art instructor, or program. If the expectation is not that we're here to produce a hundred coffee cups or colanders, might the refining of the craft get less attention? Might students feel rushed into challenging the boundaries before they have even learned where they are?
Anyway I heard the ghost of mayor mel "tsk"ing, as I walked around there. I have a big problem with hearing voices, thanks to this list. I can't try a bowl-in-a-bowl without hearing dannon talking me through each step; chris henley chats with me about how to make a whistle every time. I hear mel's voice every time I'm on the wheel, and half the time when I'm done he tells me to throw it in the slop bucket and start over. I make something I like, glaze it, hearing all your voices and opinions about how and where and with what. A whole kilnload and I come up with one decent coffee cup. And when I pour myself a cup of cofffe, there's this voice that says, "nice cup on that handle"....
Kelly in Ohio, wondering what kind of mojo/voodoo will exorcise the ghosts of potters... whatever it is it probably requires gerstley borate.
_________________________________________________________________
iVillage.com: Solutions for Your Life
Check out the most exciting women's community on the Web
http://www.ivillage.com
John Jensen on sun 1 apr 01
When I was a freshman at college, the rule of the English department was:
One letter grade off for each grammatical error. Didn't matter what you had
to say, if you had mispelled two words, misused a semi-colon, and omitted a
comma you got an F. I got a few of those F's, but in not time at all I
learned to navigate the Harbrace Handbook and learn some basics of the craft
of writing. Why shouldn't university pottery programs be just a strict?
Put pressure on the students to learn the craft while at the same time
demanding growth as an artist.
John Jensen in Annapolis Mudbug Pottery
Snail Scott on sun 1 apr 01
At 08:29 PM 3/31/01 -0800, you wrote:
>
>Here's what I think I noticed, untrained as my eye might be. Student work
in which the basics of the craft had not yet >been mastered, but in which
students had skipped to the next step. Dog-dish bottoms on beginnerish
wheel thrown >vessels, for example, to which interesting/arty things had
been done, the kinds of things which, done well, would grace >ceramics
mags. I kept seeing it in different students' work; maybe students who
considered the craftsmanship sufficient >to move on, or who were
"artifying" their work in apology -- or as camoflage for -- a lack of
skills at the craft. To >draw the eye from the flaws in the original pot...
>Kelly
I've seen the phenomenon, too, but I'm inclined
to be more charitable about this. It can be
frustrating to wait for one's skills to develop,
but is ornament really a 'next' step? Couldn't
the impulse to decorate be developed in
tandem with fundamental craft skills? It doesn't
actually interfere, does it? Most people who
take these classes aren't planning a professional
career in the craft yet; they're trying to have
fun. If they have fun, they'e more likely to
stick with it long enough for the fundamental
skills to improve. If they're not interested in
improving, a studio dictum against premature
ornamentation isn't likely to keep them around,
anyway.
-Snail
Gayle Bair on mon 2 apr 01
I think we have to consider that each person comes to clay via a unique
route. Some may have been born into it, some through school, some through
design, or like myself a chance class my daughter suggested we take
together. We all come into it with different degrees of life and art
experience.
I brought 40 years of an arts background to that my first clay class.
My sense of style, design and aesthetics was far superior to my clay
craftsmanship. I recognized my clay abilities needed lots of improvement and
experience so threw myself into intensive study. I weaseled my way into a
studio until I had my own. I had rarely been so driven.... not in school,
college or life! I raided my local used book store and bought books on
different cultures & countries, sculpture, bronzes, pottery, natural
wonders, architecture........ if it had forms I thought were aesthetic I
bought it and studied it. I watched other students, took workshops, went to
museums etc. I shamelessly asked "stupid" questions and watched anyone
working who had something I needed to learn. Within a year I was assisting
and teaching.
So because I knew I needed to improve my clay abilities was I to stifle my
aesthetic sense so the design was as clunky as the pot? I think not!
My first sale was about 6 months after my first class. I sold nearly as much
as the experienced potters. I do not have nightmares about the pieces that
had amateurish footrings, or heavy bottoms. The people buying them
understood I was selling an aesthetic.
What sold was a nice shape, nice design and something a little different.
The fact that my skill with clay needed to catch up was evident, there was
no pretense.
If I refused to sell my work before I attain my ideal level of craftsmanship
I would be in the poorhouse. The pots I make tomorrow
will likely be more skillful than the ones I make today.
Gayle Bair - Bainbridge Island WA
At 08:29 PM 3/31/01 -0800, you wrote:
>
>Here's what I think I noticed, untrained as my eye might be. Student work
in which the basics of the craft had not yet >been mastered, but in which
students had skipped to the next step. Dog-dish bottoms on beginnerish
wheel thrown >vessels, for example, to which interesting/arty things had
been done, the kinds of things which, done well, would grace >ceramics
mags. I kept seeing it in different students' work; maybe students who
considered the craftsmanship sufficient >to move on, or who were
"artifying" their work in apology -- or as camoflage for -- a lack of
skills at the craft. To >draw the eye from the flaws in the original pot...
>Kelly
I've seen the phenomenon, too, but I'm inclined
to be more charitable about this. It can be
frustrating to wait for one's skills to develop,
but is ornament really a 'next' step? Couldn't
the impulse to decorate be developed in
tandem with fundamental craft skills? It doesn't
actually interfere, does it? Most people who
take these classes aren't planning a professional
career in the craft yet; they're trying to have
fun. If they have fun, they'e more likely to
stick with it long enough for the fundamental
skills to improve. If they're not interested in
improving, a studio dictum against premature
ornamentation isn't likely to keep them around,
anyway.
-Snail
| |
|
