Ruth Ballou on wed 25 apr 01
Things to think about......
Balance, repetition, movement, rythm. What are you trying to say with you=
r
pot? Elegant, humble, modern, a historical reference, post modern, abstra=
ct
expressionism, minimalism, a movement not yet identified? What about you=
r
pot reinforces thoses ideas? Is the pot consistent? Is it soft or rough o=
r
crisp, bold or subtle, or a study in contrasts? Does anything about the p=
ot
remind you of something in nature or architecture? How do the foot (or
base) and rim relate to each other, and to the pot? Height of the foot an=
d
rim? Width of each? Are they beveled or straight, rounded, simple or
complex? Does the eye move around the pot? Where to first, next? Are you
curious to see what's on the other side, the bottom, to pick it up? If
functional, does it function. Does the suface design relate to the form?
Has a sense of depth been created in the surface through the use of the
firing, glaze, color, or texture? Where are the major divisions of the
form? Do the parts work together as a whole, especially important if
you've physically joined pieces together or if there are separate pieces =
(
lid or parts of a set). How are the transitions in the form handled, from
one type of curve to another or from a straight to a curve. Are the curve=
s
continuous or are they interrupted by straights? If there is brushwork, i=
s
the design executed with sureness and vigor? Is the whole pot executed wi=
th
sureness? Are the form and design well developed? Do you see a cohesivnes=
s,
a direction in a body of work?
Studying various classical pots helps to discern the answers to these
questions and to develop a personal aesthetic for judging your own pots. =
By
classical pots, I mean those pots made throughout history, which can be
readily identified as belonging to a particular culture and/or time perio=
d.
Attic ware, Jomon pottery, Haniwa, Inca or Mayan ceramics, Chinese Song
Dynasty, Korean, pots from the various Japanese kilns, ancient Persian
ceramics, 20th century Scandanavian design, Wedgewood, Art pottery from t=
he
early 20th century, Anasazi pots, African,etc, etc. We look at these pots
centuries later and still find them beautiful. Each culture has its own
standards for beauty which are refined over time by the various makers of
pots, yet frequently we are able to appreciate these pots from the past o=
r
=66rom a different culture today. You might think about sketching pots fr=
om
musuems or books. The action of drawing will help internalize the beauty =
of
the pots, whether you consciously analyze them or not. Then put your
sketchbooks away. Let this information percolate.
We cannot judge in a vacuum and whether we like it or not, our judgements
are based not only on what we've been taught directly, but also how our
brains are wired and what we've seen in the world around us since we were
children. These memories are buried deep and we may not realize that we
like a particular shape or pattern because it sat our kitchens or was par=
t
of a tree in our yards.
You might also be interested in this article "Behind Closed Doors: Inside
the Final Jury Session for the Smithsonian Craft Show" on the web at
http://www.craftsreport.com/april98/scsjury.html .
Hope you're still awake.
Ruth
Cindy Ginter on thu 26 apr 01
I looked at the site Ruth suggested. The jurors made commentary, but =3D
those comments did not reflect the great points Ruth made in her =3D
article. No mention of repetition or movement. Some vague notions about =
=3D
the "conversation" that the piece generates, the vocabulary of the =3D
artist. I would like to see someone critique a piece using some of =3D
Ruth's ideas. Balance, color, Dominance (focal point), depth, symbolism =
=3D
, form movement those are some of things that I was taught in school =3D
anyway.etc. When I look at a piece, my knee jerk reaction is: I like or =3D
I don't or hmmm I don't understand this piece. Then, I evaluate why I =3D
like or dislike the piece. I might say, the use of color clashes with =3D
the form or poorly constructed etc.
I would love to hear how other judge pots and clay sculpture they see, =3D
afterall, isn't this Clay ART ?
----- Original Message -----=3D20
From: Ruth Ballou
To:
Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2001 9:04 PM
Subject: Re: Aesthetics: Judging Pottery
> Things to think about......
>=3D20
> Balance, repetition, movement, rythm. What are you trying to say with =3D
your
> pot? Elegant, humble, modern, a historical reference, post modern, =3D
abstract
> expressionism, minimalism, a movement not yet identified? What about =3D
your
> pot reinforces thoses ideas? Is the pot consistent? Is it soft or =3D
rough or
> crisp, bold or subtle, or a study in contrasts? Does anything about =3D
the pot
> remind you of something in nature or architecture? How do the foot (or
> base) and rim relate to each other, and to the pot? Height of the foot =
=3D
and
> rim? Width of each? Are they beveled or straight, rounded, simple or
> complex? Does the eye move around the pot? Where to first, next? Are =3D
you
> curious to see what's on the other side, the bottom, to pick it up? If
> functional, does it function. Does the suface design relate to the =3D
form?
> Has a sense of depth been created in the surface through the use of =3D
the
> firing, glaze, color, or texture? Where are the major divisions of =3D
the
> form? Do the parts work together as a whole, especially important if
> you've physically joined pieces together or if there are separate =3D
pieces (
> lid or parts of a set). How are the transitions in the form handled, =3D
from
> one type of curve to another or from a straight to a curve. Are the =3D
curves
> continuous or are they interrupted by straights? If there is =3D
brushwork, is
> the design executed with sureness and vigor? Is the whole pot executed =
=3D
with
> sureness? Are the form and design well developed? Do you see a =3D
cohesivness,
> a direction in a body of work?
>=3D20
> Studying various classical pots helps to discern the answers to these
> questions and to develop a personal aesthetic for judging your own =3D
pots. By
> classical pots, I mean those pots made throughout history, which can =3D
be
> readily identified as belonging to a particular culture and/or time =3D
period.
> Attic ware, Jomon pottery, Haniwa, Inca or Mayan ceramics, Chinese =3D
Song
> Dynasty, Korean, pots from the various Japanese kilns, ancient Persian
> ceramics, 20th century Scandanavian design, Wedgewood, Art pottery =3D
=66rom the
> early 20th century, Anasazi pots, African,etc, etc. We look at these =3D
pots
> centuries later and still find them beautiful. Each culture has its =3D
own
> standards for beauty which are refined over time by the various makers =
=3D
of
> pots, yet frequently we are able to appreciate these pots from the =3D
past or
> from a different culture today. You might think about sketching pots =3D
from
> musuems or books. The action of drawing will help internalize the =3D
beauty of
> the pots, whether you consciously analyze them or not. Then put your
> sketchbooks away. Let this information percolate.
>=3D20
> We cannot judge in a vacuum and whether we like it or not, our =3D
judgements
> are based not only on what we've been taught directly, but also how =3D
our
> brains are wired and what we've seen in the world around us since we =3D
were
> children. These memories are buried deep and we may not realize that =3D
we
> like a particular shape or pattern because it sat our kitchens or was =3D
part
> of a tree in our yards.
>=3D20
> You might also be interested in this article "Behind Closed Doors: =3D
Inside
> the Final Jury Session for the Smithsonian Craft Show" on the web at
> http://www.craftsreport.com/april98/scsjury.html .
>=3D20
> Hope you're still awake.
>=3D20
> Ruth
>=3D20
> =3D
_________________________________________________________________________=
=3D
_____
> Send postings to clayart@lsv.ceramics.org
>=3D20
> You may look at the archives for the list or change your subscription
> settings from http://www.ceramics.org/clayart/
>=3D20
> Moderator of the list is Mel Jacobson who may be reached at =3D
melpots@pclink.com.
>=3D20
| |
|
