Julie Ryan on tue 3 jul 01
Hello again,
When I posted the MacKenzie not signing his work question, I didn’t realize
all that I was asking! I thank everyone for their thoughtful responses.
We heard a lot about MacKenzie’s selling strategies (local distribution, low
prices) and the stories as to what may have prompted him to stop signing his
work. In a sad way, when the man came to MacKenzie’s showroom, asked which
pots were his, and then bought only those, it IS the same as a man going to
a hardware store, asking where the “Crescent” wrenches are, and then buying
them.
Buying only MacKenzie’s pots in quantity indicates to me that this man
wanted to possess MacKenzie’s work because of their value in the market He
was not buying his pots to use. (From what I’ve read, it appears that this
is not what MacKenzie wants – he wants his work to be bought and USED by
regular people, not collectors and curators.)
In effect, he was commodifying MacKenzie’s name, and I think this would be
very alienating. The product of his labor became a means for profit for
someone else. When that happens, the “product” – whether it be pots or
wrenches or tennis shoes – becomes irrelevant. The value is not the pot but
the name on the bottom of it. To me, this represents the worst that
capitalism has to offer. (And believe me, my list is pretty long.)
I’m not saying that it’s wrong for someone to share in profits, and I’m not
disputing that a name can add value to a product. However, the person who
produces the work needs to retain control over their products. Most locally
known potters are able to do this. Perhaps deciding not to sign his work was
a way for MacKenzie to take back some of this control.
I do not assume to know the mind of MacKenzie or anyone else, and I know
that people’s reasons for signing or not signing their work are varied and
complicated. Thus, the above thoughts are just my conclusions.
Julie Ryan in Dallas, TX
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
Dannon Rhudy on wed 4 jul 01
>
>In effect, he was commodifying MacKenzie=92s name, ......
.....very alienating.=20
....., the person who produces the work needs to retain control over the=
ir
products. Most locally known potters are able to do this. .....
I don't want to get into the "sign/don't sign" kettle - but I really
want to respond to the idea that "the person who produces the
work needs to retain control". That simply is not possible. When one
sells ones work, be it pot or tennis shoe or green peppers from the
garden, control passes immediately to the new owner. The item
is theirs from that point, they may do with it as they will. If you've
produced the worlds best green pepper(s), the purchaser may
still let them sit and rot, or throw them at their favorite enemy, or
forget them in the trunk of the car, or make world champion stuffed
peppers. Their peppers, their decision. If someone buys my very
favorite piece of work I've ever made, takes it home and pounds it
with a hammer - not my business anymore. I don't have "control".
I've sold it, or given it. It's mine until then, it's not mine after tha=
t.
It may be that I won't like what happens to my work after it is sold
and gone. Very probably I won't, in fact. But I don't make it so that
I can watch over it forever. I make it because I want to MAKE it.
I sell it because I like to have supper, and also so that I'll have room
for the new work I make. The idea of "control" seems foreign in
this regard. My efforts at "control"are better aimed at my
tendencies to be impulsive, off-hand, out-spoken, impious, hyper-
critical, skeptical, etc. ad nauseum.=20
And good may those efforts do me, eh?
regards
Dannon Rhudy
| |
|
