clennell on tue 7 aug 01
Here is my take on live pots and dead pots.
I think there are a lot of potters sitting around thinking too much and not
making enough. good repetition throwers can copy a form -EXACTLY!If the
orginal form is thrown with life the next hundred the repetition thrower
makes will hit the mark. Design the pot at night on paper or in your minds
eye and go in the studio and make it, and make some more!
I can still hear the words of Harry Davis at a workshop he gave in Barrie
Ontario. A young art student said when are you going to stop making cups,
saucers and creamers and make something substantial. He answered "Young
lady unless you have independent means, you had better learn how to make
cups and saucers and make them bloody fast".
I have dumped on my fellow potters for not keeping up a standard many a
times. I have also dipped below my own acceptable standard. Live or dead is
absolutely a question of ones bank balance. those that spend the whole day
in search of the perfect pot have independent means. for the rest of us
mortals we have bills to pay.
Aren't you glad I'm back.
Cheers,
Tony
Craig Martell on tue 7 aug 01
Tony sez that Harry one said:
>I can still hear the words of Harry Davis at a workshop he gave in Barrie
>Ontario. A young art student said when are you going to stop making cups,
>saucers and creamers and make something substantial. He answered "Young
>lady unless you have independent means, you had better learn how to make
>cups and saucers and make them bloody fast".
Hey Tony C:
This reminds me of the time I got invited to do a teapot show and I made a
candid appearance at the reception. One of the other potters was looking
at a teaset that I made with 6 small cups to drink tea from. He said: "How
can you stand to make this little shit?" Those were his exact words. I
said: "I don't think that size has anything to do with a pot being
shit. It's the attitude behind what's being made."
All of the above makes me think of something else that Harry said. "Tedium
is accentuated when skill is minimal." This was in response to someone
whining about having to throw a lot of production stuff.
welcome back, Craig Martell in Oregon
Alex Solla on tue 7 aug 01
Always glad when you are back Tony.
If it weren't for you and a few others, we'd get the
idea that the clayworld is a nice happy safe place.
Nice to know that reality bites. And has teeth.
Always the difference between aspiration and
perspiration. And I am sure you sweat!
-Alex
--- clennell wrote:
> Here is my take on live pots and dead pots.
> I think there are a lot of potters sitting around
> thinking too much and not
> making enough. good repetition throwers can copy a
> form -EXACTLY!If the
> orginal form is thrown with life the next hundred
> the repetition thrower
> makes will hit the mark. Design the pot at night on
> paper or in your minds
> eye and go in the studio and make it, and make some
> more!
> I can still hear the words of Harry Davis at a
> workshop he gave in Barrie
> Ontario. A young art student said when are you going
> to stop making cups,
> saucers and creamers and make something substantial.
> He answered "Young
> lady unless you have independent means, you had
> better learn how to make
> cups and saucers and make them bloody fast".
> I have dumped on my fellow potters for not keeping
> up a standard many a
> times. I have also dipped below my own acceptable
> standard. Live or dead is
> absolutely a question of ones bank balance. those
> that spend the whole day
> in search of the perfect pot have independent means.
> for the rest of us
> mortals we have bills to pay.
> Aren't you glad I'm back.
> Cheers,
> Tony
>
>
______________________________________________________________________________
> 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.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger
http://phonecard.yahoo.com/
Wesley Rolley on tue 7 aug 01
Welcome back, Tony. Thought that you had decided that it was now or=20=
never for the NHL.=20
I hate to think that I was considered one of the "bashers" of repetition=
=20
throwing. The intent of my posting on the subject is that it is easier =
for me to keep my focus and concentration on the object in hand when I a=
m=20
conceiving and making slightly different versions of the same basic=20
shape. My practice is in playing variations on a theme rather than=20
practicing scales. That works for me, and I build skill and improve my =
product at the same time. That may also be why I chose to do this with =
vases, not mugs. But each variation is visualized before thrown and=20=
scraped if it is not what I intended. So, a series of 100 vases is not =
100 attempts, but 100 completions.=20
And yes, I do sit around thinking too much and some of it is about=20
pottery. I also think about general aesthetic issues and why so much=20=
crap makes it into museums under one guise or another. My work will=20
probably never make it into any museum on any level, but that is maybe=20=
because I started too late (dumb, dumb, dumb). While I am working=20
through my thoughts, it is helpful to discuss with someone else, and so =
I=20
write. I also sit and think and write about other things, like why my=20=
town needs an "Architectural Review Board". I hope that they have all=20=
read "The Timeless Way of Building." I will tell them so in the local=20=
press, too.=20
In case you missed the discussion, be prepared for some un-explained=20=
email from Brazil. (Mel, get that re-signup going.)
Wes=20
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Original Message <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
On 8/6/01, 10:41:29 PM, clennell wrote regarding =
Beating Up on the Repetition Thrower:
> Here is my take on live pots and dead pots.
> I think there are a lot of potters sitting around thinking too much an=
d=20
not
> making enough. good repetition throwers can copy a form -EXACTLY!If th=
e
> orginal form is thrown with life the next hundred the repetition throw=
er
> makes will hit the mark. Design the pot at night on paper or in your=20=
minds
> eye and go in the studio and make it, and make some more!
> I can still hear the words of Harry Davis at a workshop he gave in Bar=
rie
> Ontario. A young art student said when are you going to stop making cu=
ps,
> saucers and creamers and make something substantial. He answered "You=
ng
> lady unless you have independent means, you had better learn how to ma=
ke
> cups and saucers and make them bloody fast".
> I have dumped on my fellow potters for not keeping up a standard many =
a
> times. I have also dipped below my own acceptable standard. Live or d=
ead=20
is
> absolutely a question of ones bank balance. those that spend the whole=
=20
day
> in search of the perfect pot have independent means. for the rest of u=
s
> mortals we have bills to pay.
> Aren't you glad I'm back.
> Cheers,
> Tony
>=20
________________________________________________________________________=
__
____
> 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=20
melpots@pclink.com.
Paul Taylor on wed 8 aug 01
--
> From: clennell
> Reply-To: Ceramic Arts Discussion List
> Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2001 13:41:29 +0800
> To: CLAYART@LSV.CERAMICS.ORG
> Subject: Beating Up on the Repetition Thrower
>I have also dipped below my own acceptable standard. Live or dead is
> absolutely a question of ones bank balance.
> Aren't you glad I'm back.
> Cheers,
> Tony
>
Dear Tony
Great post. I have always thought I was the only one that 'dipped
bellow' its a relief to not to be alone.
I wonder if students realize that the pots that are put in the magazines
are selected as the best. Non of us maintain that standard one hundred
percent.
Also I have met and taught (or failed to teach) some that can not see or
appreciate any difference between a trained and practiced production thrower
and themselves. What's more is that they seem to be able to convince others
to ignore the obvious - that they have got no idea what so ever. I am
sometimes astounded by their lack of reflection . EG the spiky and sharp
little spout is not found in the mainstream of pottery, not because other
potters over the centuries have failed to make the conceptual leap, but
because it don't pore and looks awful. Which goes to show that total
confidence (which I lack) is as disabilitating as doubt ( which I have too
much of).
I noticed that a lot of people, whose posts I like, decided to give
writing to clayart a rest this spring. My reasons were: that a lot of new
people were writing in that needed a turn, also pressure of work, and I
could not deal with another one of those 'who is the greatest', 'the best',
and 'all love the most' posts. Probably a deep seated fear of rejection on
my behalf. There is little I can do about that since we have so many here
crazier than me flooding the market. You can't get a hang up seen to here
for love or money.
-- Regards from Paul Taylor
http://www.anu.ie/westportpottery
Wesley Rolley on wed 8 aug 01
Paul,=20
If you re-read your post, you have hit one of the problems on the head. =
=20
> I wonder if students realize that the pots that are put in the=20=
magazines
> are selected as the best. Non of us maintain that standard one hundred=
> percent.
While some magazines and books have pictures of wonderful art (for=20
example the Hal Riegger plates in Steve Branfman's Raku book), the same =
magazines and books have examples that are not up to that standard and=20=
which may have been included because they illustrate a particular=20
technique or approach.=20
You also say that:
> I am
> sometimes astounded by their lack of reflection . EG the spiky and sha=
rp
> little spout is not found in the mainstream of pottery, not because ot=
her
> potters over the centuries have failed to make the conceptual leap, bu=
t
> because it don't pore and looks awful.=20
Maybe the students are enamored by the "spiky and sharp little spout"=20=
because they saw it in a magazine where it has been "selected as the=20=
best."=20
I know that the solution is, as MAYOR MEL says, to "just get after it.=20=
make stuff." It is still in my nature to observe, look, read and think =
about what I am doing. I hone my thinking by letting everyone else take=
=20
a pot shot at it.=20
Wes=20
Ron Roy on wed 8 aug 01
Costs no more in time and space to make good pots - it's a matter of seeing
and feeling and knowing.
It is something you must want and be willing to pay the price - and worth
the effort.
RR
Ron Roy
RR# 4
15084 Little Lake Rd..
Brighton,
Ontario, Canada
KOK 1H0
Residence 613-475-9544
Studio 613-475-3715
Fax 613-475-3513
Joyce Lee on wed 8 aug 01
RR said:
"Costs no more in time and space to make good pots - it's a matter of =
seeing
and feeling and knowing.
It is something you must want and be willing to pay the price - and =
worth
the effort."
-----------------------------------------------------
I am in total agreement..... how could I not be? However, dear RR, =
sometimes willingness isn't enough ..... or the price tag is more or =
less hidden. AND our seeing and feeling skills have been directed =
elsewhere for a lifetime, so we still aren't sure what our senses are =
telling us about pots. We who are no longer newbies, but are still =
struggling because we're not satisfied with our work AT ALL, may in fact =
be closer than we think to having paid full&top dollar .... enabling us =
to receive our prize of Process Understood, with its Accomplished =
Potter award. =20
I, however, still feel some resistance to making..... for example.... =
400 teapots. I understand the concept. But seems to me that at the end =
I may only be able to make a decent teapot ... or will the peripheral =
learning mean that I'd then be able to make better lids... better =
attachments .... rounder pots in general ... nice footrings ... better =
handles...... no, not good enough, elegant handles???? Hmmm maybe I'm =
talking myself into this assignment which I've taken on several times =
and always quit after completing a few dozen ... most of which went to =
the the dump.
Thanks to all of you for keeping the thread going. I believe that it's =
an important one.................I think.
Joyce
In the Mojave
Paul Taylor on sun 12 aug 01
Dear Ron
I agree in essence to what you say. but I do not think that anybody ever
sits down and makes a bad pot. I suppose pressure of time may hurry you into
bad design and when you see an improvement its too late to change.
What many of us production throwers think is that too much time can make
bad pots.
There are some who substitute perfectionism for seeing feeling and
Knowing. There is a "right" amount of time for most pots. (which gets
shorter the more of that shape you make).
There are potters who make very tense and up tight pottery thinking that
immaculate craftsmanship makes good pottery . These perfectionists have to
be unpracticed or have a job outside supporting their pottery so they
always have time to hone a shape to death. Some have enough sycophants
around to exalt their position and/or do not have to support them selves
selling pottery, so they never feel the need to reflect on the lack of
spontaneity "one of the attributes of 'life' in their pots.
And on the other side of the coin there are those that believe they make
good pots because they sell a lot of them to customers who vote with their
wallets. I remember the old quote " no one ever lost any money by under
estimating public taste" - so it is possible to make bad pots under any
circumstances but again not often knowingly.
As you probably know through your own experience that often time is an
illusory thing and over the years I have unknowingly rushed through pots or
been forced to carry on making through economic pressure in spite of having
a cold or tiredness. Sometimes not even having the perception to realize how
tired I was until the next day when the pots have to be finished and fired
regardless of standard. Fortunately a bad day for me is still to an
acceptable standard because I have developed a level of craftsmanship over
years of practice Repetition throwing - but sometimes I know can do better
.
I believe when I make a series of special pieces all that production work
gives the 'one off' pieces a hidden confidence , even if its only noticed by
a few it is still important to me.
As an aside - I am worried if what small abilities I have may start to
leave as I get older and that pots could take longer to make to keep the
standard improving or will old father time protect me with a reputation and
a good dose of denial.
Also If I look over my past pots some that I thought good then are an
embarrassment now " did I make that !" some are a pleasant surprise " did I
make that ? ". So even my judgment of my own standard is constantly
shifting. Good becomes bad and bad becomes good - like life.
I agree it costs no more time and space to make good pots and I think a
little more time can make a good pot bad but as you said the seeing feeling
and knowing that is the essence of ceramics.
However 'feelings' they are ephemeral things, there one day and gone the
next, and under constant review. If one can get to a certain standard with
repetition throwing one only needs to concern ones self with the feeling and
knowing. Knowing how to repeat throw gives you confidence to make anything.
If you struggle too much to make a shape your feelings will be blocked and
ironically no struggle at all leads to emptiness and boredom, And if you
can not recognize that you are trying to hard because you have never made
pots with out struggle you are now selling bad pots that will never get
better until the potter has experienced that feeling of ease that lets you
attend to more important matters ( like the radio :).
Also If a potter is certain all his pots are 'good' I would take that as
proof that most of them are not. We are our only critics good potters are
usually too polite to tell you and bad potters are not worth listening to.
To conclude - Some of us have to make a living so we sell the good with
the bad. We would like the good pots to survive . As for the rest of them -
we hope a careless child or an unruly dog will intervene on our behalf.
Regards from Paul Taylor
http://www.anu.ie/westportpottery
Alchemy is the proof that economics is not a science.
> From: Ron Roy
> Reply-To: Ceramic Arts Discussion List
> Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2001 16:24:24 -0400
> To: CLAYART@LSV.CERAMICS.ORG
> Subject: Re: Beating Up on the Repetition Thrower
>
> Costs no more in time and space to make good pots - it's a matter of seeing
> and feeling and knowing.
>
> It is something you must want and be willing to pay the price - and worth
> the effort.
>
> RR
>
> Ron Roy
> RR# 4
> 15084 Little Lake Rd..
> Brighton,
> Ontario, Canada
> KOK 1H0
> Residence 613-475-9544
> Studio 613-475-3715
> Fax 613-475-3513
>
> ______________________________________________________________________________
> 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.
Ron Roy on mon 13 aug 01
I am beginning to think there are some who think I am criticizing
production potters - Not so - they are my heros and many are friends. I
spend a fair amout of time helping those who make a living at this craft.
My remarks were in response to the statement - often reiterated on this
list - that repitition throwing will make you a better potter. Yes - that
is true - you will learn to throw better and your ability to form will be
better. What it will not do is improve your design skills - that requires
thoughfulness for most of us.
I know of many production potters who do make their living from making pots
- wonderful pots - they sell well in spite of good design.
All I am saying in the end is - you can do both - but you have to keep
trying - even if it's not necessary.
What I want are better pots - especially those I can afford.
RR
>Dear Ron
> I agree in essence to what you say. but I do not think that anybody ever
>sits down and makes a bad pot. I suppose pressure of time may hurry you into
>bad design and when you see an improvement its too late to change.
>
> What many of us production throwers think is that too much time can make
>bad pots.
>
> There are some who substitute perfectionism for seeing feeling and
>Knowing. There is a "right" amount of time for most pots. (which gets
>shorter the more of that shape you make).
>
> There are potters who make very tense and up tight pottery thinking that
>immaculate craftsmanship makes good pottery . These perfectionists have to
>be unpracticed or have a job outside supporting their pottery so they
>always have time to hone a shape to death. Some have enough sycophants
>around to exalt their position and/or do not have to support them selves
>selling pottery, so they never feel the need to reflect on the lack of
>spontaneity "one of the attributes of 'life' in their pots.
>
> And on the other side of the coin there are those that believe they make
>good pots because they sell a lot of them to customers who vote with their
>wallets. I remember the old quote " no one ever lost any money by under
>estimating public taste" - so it is possible to make bad pots under any
>circumstances but again not often knowingly.
>
> As you probably know through your own experience that often time is an
>illusory thing and over the years I have unknowingly rushed through pots or
>been forced to carry on making through economic pressure in spite of having
>a cold or tiredness. Sometimes not even having the perception to realize how
>tired I was until the next day when the pots have to be finished and fired
>regardless of standard. Fortunately a bad day for me is still to an
>acceptable standard because I have developed a level of craftsmanship over
>years of practice Repetition throwing - but sometimes I know can do better
>.
>
> I believe when I make a series of special pieces all that production work
>gives the 'one off' pieces a hidden confidence , even if its only noticed by
>a few it is still important to me.
>
> As an aside - I am worried if what small abilities I have may start to
>leave as I get older and that pots could take longer to make to keep the
>standard improving or will old father time protect me with a reputation and
>a good dose of denial.
>
> Also If I look over my past pots some that I thought good then are an
>embarrassment now " did I make that !" some are a pleasant surprise " did I
>make that ? ". So even my judgment of my own standard is constantly
>shifting. Good becomes bad and bad becomes good - like life.
>
> I agree it costs no more time and space to make good pots and I think a
>little more time can make a good pot bad but as you said the seeing feeling
>and knowing that is the essence of ceramics.
>
> However 'feelings' they are ephemeral things, there one day and gone the
>next, and under constant review. If one can get to a certain standard with
>repetition throwing one only needs to concern ones self with the feeling and
>knowing. Knowing how to repeat throw gives you confidence to make anything.
>If you struggle too much to make a shape your feelings will be blocked and
>ironically no struggle at all leads to emptiness and boredom, And if you
>can not recognize that you are trying to hard because you have never made
>pots with out struggle you are now selling bad pots that will never get
>better until the potter has experienced that feeling of ease that lets you
>attend to more important matters ( like the radio :).
>
> Also If a potter is certain all his pots are 'good' I would take that as
>proof that most of them are not. We are our only critics good potters are
>usually too polite to tell you and bad potters are not worth listening to.
>
> To conclude - Some of us have to make a living so we sell the good with
>the bad. We would like the good pots to survive . As for the rest of them -
>we hope a careless child or an unruly dog will intervene on our behalf.
>
>
> Regards from Paul Taylor
>http://www.anu.ie/westportpottery
>
> Alchemy is the proof that economics is not a science.
>
>
>> From: Ron Roy
>> Reply-To: Ceramic Arts Discussion List
>> Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2001 16:24:24 -0400
>> To: CLAYART@LSV.CERAMICS.ORG
>> Subject: Re: Beating Up on the Repetition Thrower
>>
>> Costs no more in time and space to make good pots - it's a matter of seeing
>> and feeling and knowing.
>>
>> It is something you must want and be willing to pay the price - and worth
>> the effort.
>>
>> RR
>>
>> Ron Roy
>> RR# 4
>> 15084 Little Lake Rd..
>> Brighton,
>> Ontario, Canada
>> KOK 1H0
>> Residence 613-475-9544
>> Studio 613-475-3715
>> Fax 613-475-3513
>>
>>
>>__________________________________________________________________________
>>____
>> 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.
>
>______________________________________________________________________________
>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.
Ron Roy
RR# 4
15084 Little Lake Rd..
Brighton,
Ontario, Canada
KOK 1H0
Residence 613-475-9544
Studio 613-475-3715
Fax 613-475-3513
Paul Taylor on tue 14 aug 01
Dear Ron
Please accept my apologies my letter was clumsily worded . Reading my
letter I can see my passion for the subject has come across very
aggressively and seemingly critical.
In essence I was agreeing with you and I was using your letter to try
and tease out the reasons why us production potters , inspite of knowing
that it takes as much time to make a good pot as bad, can still flood the
market with bad pottery.
I also tried to explain that repetition throwing gave one greater
freedom to make one off pots that do not look contrived - but again that was
not particularly clear.
Looking through my clayart posts I see that we have had a few forthright
discussions and some disagreement in the past. I would like to say that
through those discussions, that I have had with yourself, I have had to
question many of my views, and either find better reasoning or change them.
But the impression could be taken of belligerence on my behalf; where
as appreciation that you are discussing glazes and such with me is a more
accurate description of my feelings.
Be that as it may there is no excuse for my bad rhetoric - so again
sorry.
Regards from Paul Taylor
http://www.anu.ie/westportpottery
> From: Ron Roy
> Reply-To: Ceramic Arts Discussion List
> Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2001 23:48:33 -0400
> To: CLAYART@LSV.CERAMICS.ORG
> Subject: Re: Beating Up on the Repetition Thrower
>
> I am beginning to think there are some who think I am criticizing
> production potters - Not so - they are my heros and many are friends. I
> spend a fair amout of time helping those who make a living at this craft.
>
> My remarks were in response to the statement - often reiterated on this
> list - that repitition throwing will make you a better potter. Yes - that
> is true - you will learn to throw better and your ability to form will be
> better. What it will not do is improve your design skills - that requires
> thoughfulness for most of us.
>
> I know of many production potters who do make their living from making pots
> - wonderful pots - they sell well in spite of good design.
>
> All I am saying in the end is - you can do both - but you have to keep
> trying - even if it's not necessary.
>
> What I want are better pots - especially those I can afford.
>
> RR
Ron Roy on wed 15 aug 01
None needed Paul - makes me feel good that you did though. Wish some others
were as good natured as you.
I think you have included some valuable thoughts to the tread - I hope you
conyinue - it is an important subject.
RR
> Please accept my apologies my letter was clumsily worded . Reading my
>letter I can see my passion for the subject has come across very
>aggressively and seemingly critical.
>
> In essence I was agreeing with you and I was using your letter to try
>and tease out the reasons why us production potters , inspite of knowing
>that it takes as much time to make a good pot as bad, can still flood the
>market with bad pottery.
>
> I also tried to explain that repetition throwing gave one greater
>freedom to make one off pots that do not look contrived - but again that was
>not particularly clear.
>
>
> Looking through my clayart posts I see that we have had a few forthright
>discussions and some disagreement in the past. I would like to say that
>through those discussions, that I have had with yourself, I have had to
>question many of my views, and either find better reasoning or change them.
> But the impression could be taken of belligerence on my behalf; where
>as appreciation that you are discussing glazes and such with me is a more
>accurate description of my feelings.
> Regards from Paul Taylor
Ron Roy
RR# 4
15084 Little Lake Rd..
Brighton,
Ontario, Canada
KOK 1H0
Residence 613-475-9544
Studio 613-475-3715
Fax 613-475-3513
Steve Mills on wed 15 aug 01
For me the years spent repetition throwing taught me to make quickly and
directly; fiddle with a piece and very soon it looks overworked and
tired. Constant repetition of shapes has given me confidence enough not
to worry constantly about technique. 17 years after ceasing production I
can still reproduce the shapes I made given the right weight of clay,
and without the pot gauge that lived on my wheel all those years. And
now I have the luxury of taking time over each piece I know WHEN to
stop. I don't pot as often as I would like; protesting joints see to
that, but the work I do is getting better all the time, and less and
less gets junked, which keeps my spirits up.
--
Steve Mills
Bath
UK
| |
|
