Jeff Tsai on thu 23 may 02
Hi,
I am fairly young to the world of ceramics, and have been reading ceramic
books and magazines for an even shorter period of time. I know some of you
have been Ceramic Monthly, or other magazines, subscribers for a long time
and had a question.
As I read more and more about ceramics as each issue of the magazines I
subscribe to appear at my door, and as I go back and look at old back issues
from over a decade ago, I notice a lot of repetition. Not repetition of
artists profiled...that rarely happens, but of methodology and technical
advice. Often, different artists are profiled, but the same basic
methodological descriptions are given. A good example of this might be in
"Barrel, Pit, and Saggar Firing" a book which is a compilation of articles
from ceramics monthly. in just this one book, there are four articles
talking
about burnishing (each articles is a profile of a particular artist). The
four artists methods are almost exactly the same...not exactly, but almost.
I've recently begun noticing the repetition of wood firing and descriptions
of wood firing processes as well as the abundance of repetition about how
people saggar or pit fire.
Anyway, I'm not really complaining, I'm just wondering if this is normal and
has been going on since the first ceramic magazines. I was wondering because
at the KC NCECA I was standing in a conversation (I really wasn't part of
it...just was there) in which someone from Clay Times or a similar Magazine
was talking to my University instructor incouraging him to tell his graduate
students to write articles, both profiles and technical, and submit them to
magazines. This word got spread to graduate students at my school and they
quickly turned to me (I am actually a literature student and not a graduate
student either) and they asked me to write about them and their processes or
just write about something and submit it.
Here's my problem. I don't mind writing artist profiles in which I describe
and talk about the work and the artists' various influences, but writing
another page about how they make their work seems repetitive. Most of their
methods are the same as anyone would guess by looking at their pieces. Tim
still uses a rib and a hand to wobble his forms. Nate pinches and coils
pretty standardly. Gary uses a tile press. I recently read an article in a
magazine with slab built work in which several paragraphs were given
describing how the slabs were made and connected. I was a little bored by it
since every teacher, and several posts on clayart, I've ever had have said
the same things: score, slip, attach, reinforce.
I always wondered about writing in to a ceramic magazine...but I always
thought "I should write in if I figure out something different." A different
technique, a different firing method, a different way to look at clay. But
it
seems a lot of articles I see don't do that. A year or two passes and
similar
information in the form of a different article appears. Does this mean that
I
don't really have to wait for some divine inspiration to write in? I guess
that's my real question. Could I just write about what Tim is doing even
though he's not the only guy whose had articles about found objects combined
with pottery? I guess there's no such thing as the "right" kind of
submission, and if they don't like the article...the magazine can toss it,
but was just wondering about this.
-jeff
Andi Fasimpaur on thu 23 may 02
At 12:25 AM 5/23/02 -0400, you wrote:
>Here's my problem. I don't mind writing artist profiles in which I describe
>and talk about the work and the artists' various influences, but writing
>another page about how they make their work seems repetitive.
One of the biggest advantages to having multiple articles (in the same
magazine or spread out over the vast array of ceramics publications
available to the studio potter) which describe the same techniques is that
sometimes a technique takes a while to percolate. Sometimes a technique
which you've never seen demonstrated is like a complex puzzle. The reader
can see the pieces dancing at the edge of their grasp, but can't quite see
how to connect them. Maybe it's something in the repitition, maybe it's the
benefit of having multiple authors describe the process, or multiple
photographers capturing each step, or maybe it's those tiny variations
which help us to see which parts of the process are the essential
foundations and which parts are individual artistic choices...
Whatever the case, some techniques deserve to be revisited... I love to see
what other potters do with familiar techniques. And, since I have never
been a part of an academic ceramics program, I love the opportunity to
learn from other potters, even if I must do so through someone else's lens.
It's just a different perspective, but I hope that it helps.
Best Wishes,
Andi.
claybair on thu 23 may 02
Jeff,
I think you answered your question in the first line of your posting, "I am
fairly young to the world of ceramics, and have been reading ceramic
books and magazines for an even shorter period of time. "
The longer and more experience you have in any area the more able you will
become seeing differences. For whatever reason if you are bored with the
process you had better be a pretty good writer for your article to fool me!
I'd say, give yourself some time and hold off on the articles until you can
see & appreciate the differences.
Gayle Bair... has yet to see any potter throw, decorate or fire the same
way
Bainbridge Island, WA
http://claybair.com
-----Original Message-----
From:Jeff Tsai
Subject: Ceramic magazine articles (long)
Hi,
I am fairly young to the world of ceramics, and have been reading ceramic
books and magazines for an even shorter period of time. I know some of you
have been Ceramic Monthly, or other magazines, subscribers for a long time
and had a question.
As I read more and more about ceramics as each issue of the magazines I
subscribe to appear at my door, and as I go back and look at old back issues
from over a decade ago, I notice a lot of repetition. Not repetition of
artists profiled...that rarely happens, but of methodology and technical
advice. Often, different artists are profiled, but the same basic
methodological descriptions are given. A good example of this might be in
"Barrel, Pit, and Saggar Firing" a book which is a compilation of articles
from ceramics monthly. in just this one book, there are four articles
talking
about burnishing (each articles is a profile of a particular artist). The
four artists methods are almost exactly the same...not exactly, but almost.
I've recently begun noticing the repetition of wood firing and descriptions
of wood firing processes as well as the abundance of repetition about how
people saggar or pit fire.
>>snip
Elinor Eberhardt on thu 23 may 02
"Here's my problem. I don't mind writing artist profiles in which I describe
and talk about the work and the artists' various influences, but writing
another page about how they make their work seems repetitive. Most of their
methods are the same as anyone would guess by looking at their pieces."
One advantage to repeating those old techniques in magazine articles is that
there
are always new subscribers who are new to the art. It's all new and very
valuable
to them (us).
Elinor Eberhardt, a newby from Minnesota
Longtin, Jeff on thu 23 may 02
Jeff,
You've touched upon the reason I ended my Ceramics Monthly subscription so
many years ago. I used to get excited thinking CM was to going to give me
something new, some new way of seeing pots, some new way of seeing the
world. Sad to say that never happened!
I prefer to take my ideas from the world in which I live, not from some
magazine. Its too bad CM doesn't explore the many ways in which ceramics,
and ceramic materials, touch our lives on a daily basis and the new ways in
which ceramics are applied. I think THAT could stimulate new ideas, and new
ways of doing, amongst potters.
As a moldmaking potter I've used,firsthand, the many mediums we can use to
craft objects. The final piece may be clay but the processes I use may be
totally unrelated to standard ways of doing. It can sometimes be very
complicated but the possibilities are endless and very exciting.
Take care
Jeff Longtin
-----Original Message-----
From: Jeff Tsai [mailto:DemJeffHQ@AOL.COM]
Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2002 11:26 PM
To: CLAYART@LSV.CERAMICS.ORG
Subject: Ceramic magazine articles (long)
Hi,
I am fairly young to the world of ceramics, and have been reading ceramic
books and magazines for an even shorter period of time. I know some of you
have been Ceramic Monthly, or other magazines, subscribers for a long time
and had a question.
As I read more and more about ceramics as each issue of the magazines I
subscribe to appear at my door, and as I go back and look at old back issues
from over a decade ago, I notice a lot of repetition. Not repetition of
artists profiled...that rarely happens, but of methodology and technical
advice. Often, different artists are profiled, but the same basic
methodological descriptions are given. A good example of this might be in
"Barrel, Pit, and Saggar Firing" a book which is a compilation of articles
from ceramics monthly. in just this one book, there are four articles
talking
about burnishing (each articles is a profile of a particular artist). The
four artists methods are almost exactly the same...not exactly, but almost.
I've recently begun noticing the repetition of wood firing and descriptions
of wood firing processes as well as the abundance of repetition about how
people saggar or pit fire.
Anyway, I'm not really complaining, I'm just wondering if this is normal and
has been going on since the first ceramic magazines. I was wondering because
at the KC NCECA I was standing in a conversation (I really wasn't part of
it...just was there) in which someone from Clay Times or a similar Magazine
was talking to my University instructor incouraging him to tell his graduate
students to write articles, both profiles and technical, and submit them to
magazines. This word got spread to graduate students at my school and they
quickly turned to me (I am actually a literature student and not a graduate
student either) and they asked me to write about them and their processes or
just write about something and submit it.
Here's my problem. I don't mind writing artist profiles in which I describe
and talk about the work and the artists' various influences, but writing
another page about how they make their work seems repetitive. Most of their
methods are the same as anyone would guess by looking at their pieces. Tim
still uses a rib and a hand to wobble his forms. Nate pinches and coils
pretty standardly. Gary uses a tile press. I recently read an article in a
magazine with slab built work in which several paragraphs were given
describing how the slabs were made and connected. I was a little bored by it
since every teacher, and several posts on clayart, I've ever had have said
the same things: score, slip, attach, reinforce.
I always wondered about writing in to a ceramic magazine...but I always
thought "I should write in if I figure out something different." A different
technique, a different firing method, a different way to look at clay. But
it
seems a lot of articles I see don't do that. A year or two passes and
similar
information in the form of a different article appears. Does this mean that
I
don't really have to wait for some divine inspiration to write in? I guess
that's my real question. Could I just write about what Tim is doing even
though he's not the only guy whose had articles about found objects combined
with pottery? I guess there's no such thing as the "right" kind of
submission, and if they don't like the article...the magazine can toss it,
but was just wondering about this.
-jeff
____________________________________________________________________________
__
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.
Craig Martell on thu 23 may 02
Hi:
The folks who find most ceramic publications too repetetive to be of any
interest must have powers of perception beyond anything I can grasp. I
mean, I've been reading CM, Studio Potter, Ceramic Review, Pottery in
Australia, etc for decades and always find something of interest.
You people remind me of some customers I've run across who never see
anything new in a person's work unless the change is so radical that the
work appears to have been done by someone else. The idea of lateral growth
and nuance is something that doesn't reveal itself to a person who looks
quickly and heads out for a cappucino and some provocative
conversation. We need to take time to absorb what's presented to us before
we deem anything as repetetive and not worth our consideration.
regards, Craig Martell in Oregon
Snail Scott on thu 23 may 02
At 12:25 AM 5/23/02 EDT, you wrote:
>As I read more and more about ceramics as each issue of the magazines I
>subscribe to appear at my door, and as I go back and look at old back
issues
>from over a decade ago, I notice a lot of repetition.
My sister-in-law works in magazine publishing, and
once told me that every magazine calculates the
average time span of subscriptions. Based on that,
they know how often they can reasonably include
articles on similar topics. It wouldn't make sense
to only include articles on new topics that they've
never covered before. The magazine would soon become
pretty esoteric in its quest for never-before-seen
subjects. Meanwhile, newer subscribers would never
see articles on basic or common ideas, since those
would have already been printed.
Bride's Magazine, for example, has an average
subscription length of a year and a half, so after
about two or three years they can figure it's safe
to discuss 'Picking a Florist' again for the benefit
of its new readership. How often can Field & Stream
cover 'Hunting White-tailed Deer'? Not too often,
but they can't really do it just once, or newer
readers would wonder at the omission.
Also, every magazine has a hypothetical 'intended
reader', and this affects their choice of content.
Some magazines (like 'PMI') publish basic 'how-to'
information, and are oriented toward novice-to-
intermediate practicioners of the craft. Some
(like 'Ceramics Art & Perception') focus mainly on
the end product and its esthetic and conceptual
aspects, and many of its readers may not even be
craftspeople. Others (like 'CM') are somewhere in
the middle; some how-to, some concept, some artist
profiles. This may be why 'CM' is among the most
widely read of ceramics magazines, and also among
the most widely criticized - a little for everyone,
but not focused on anyone's personal specialty or
taste in depth. That's their editorial choice.
As you develop in your craft, you may find that
magazines which were valuable to you, early on, no
longer provide you with new information. However,
other magazines may begin to look more interesting
than they did before. That's just the nature of
periodical publications. Their focus stays put,
while you have moved on as a reader. You can't
really expect new readers of, say, 'PMI', to
forego learning how to join a handle, just because
it was covered a few years ago too.
At a guess, PMI will have a shorter average
subscription duration than some other magazines,
for the same reasons that bring in new subscribers
regularly: it covers the basics of technique.
Ceramics Technical may keep its sunscribers longer,
since it is more advanced in its topics and thus
can cover more techniques in finer detail, but it
probably brings in fewer new subscribers since
the pool of interested readers is smaller.
I also suspect that how-to articles become
repetitive more quickly than art/artist profiles,
since though there may be as many ways to attach
a handle as there are people who attach them,
the variety among the artists and their work is
probably greater than the variety of their
techniques. 'How to coil-build' is inherently
more limited a topic than 'What did So&So create,
using coil techniques?'. I'll bet that 'Art in
America' has a longer subscription average than
'Artist's Magazine' does.
By reading all those back issues, you've become,
essentially, a long-time reader. You may simply
have outgrown that magazine. Or, you may find
other aspects of it that seize your attention
which did not interest you before. Periodicals
are like that.
-Snail
Jeff Tsai on thu 23 may 02
Hi,
I didn't really know that my message would be taken as a wholistic
proclamation of "I find ceramic magazines too repetitive and boring!"
I don't feel that way. If I did, I would not have recently renewed my
subscriptions and ordered yet another subscription. I also wouldn't continue
to read.
I recently bought Robin Hopper's "Ceramic Spectrum," which I finally saw
available at my local bookstore. Before I bought it, I thumbed through it.
There are other more comprehensive books, giving greater detail about the
various properties of materials, but Hopper had a different philosophical
approach towards glaze making in that book that I found interesting. It
isn't
like the approach in Ron and John's recent book, or Ian Currie's "Using the
Grid..." It isn't an approach that is totally new in its concept to me
either, but I bought it anyway, and I'm almost done reading it, even the
short paragraphs talking about lichen glazes, though all of what Hopper says
I've read before in Lana Wilson's book.
Anyway, my point is, I am not utterly and completely bored. I don't open a
book, read two words I've read before, throw aside the book and go to a
coffee shop to find more interesting conversation. I don't look at a student
piece, spit, and write it off with a comment like "Oh, Don Reitz did that
before and better." Nor would I spit at a Reitz plate and say "Voulkos did
it
before." I do try to notice the nuances and differences in pieces that may
seem similar. I don't know how what I said in my original post came across
as
saying I don't.
Yes, I do see repetition in magazines, especially when they describe how a
person works technically. Sometimes this writing is good and interesting
even
if the process is familiar....but I will get bored by matter-of-fact writing
which describes a process I already know. I'm sorry if that offends. It
would
be like going to a rock concert and seeing a band that played one song
twenty-five times. Sure, each time it's play the band members are standing
in
a different place, slight vocal inflections are different, the drums might
carry the song slightly faster or slower than the previous time, but by that
tenth or eleventh time I heard the song, I might be a little bored. That
doesn't mean a week later when I hear the song on a tape I won't enjoy it,
or
that when I go home a play or sing along to the tape, I won't enjoy it.
Really, the question I realize I wastrying to get at and generate responses
to was about inspiration to write. Many of you on Clayart have written to
magazines or have been written about in magazines. Other's like Pete and
Vince are monthly contributers. My real question is about how they find
inspiration to write. How they find new slants on well-worn topics.
There have been hundreds of remakes of the basic story of Romeo and Juliet.
Some good, some bad, some obvious rip-offs, some seemingly wonderful and
new.
The key to rewriting Romeo and Juliet would be to find the right slant that
would make it interesting again (I feel bad to say again because I still
find
the story very interesting, but I let my again stand). That's the question I
guess. Where does the inspiration for these new slants come from? My
question
is not really a clay question I realize, it could apply to almost any
creative art, and even to cutting edge science and technology and
advertising, etc. Nevertheless, I ask it.
-jeff
LOGAN OPLINGER on fri 24 may 02
My 2 cents worth. Even with repetition in some of the basic themes, to
paraphrase what someone recently posted on this subject, an addition of a
new wrinkle to a basic process can make a world of difference in the out
come. Throwing on a wheel is basic to a good many potters, yet we all
approach the the formation process with enough variability to provide
different inspiration to anyone who can look at, and read about what we do.
Then of course different resource materials (clays, glazes, water, fuels,
kilns, climate, etc.) will all require a somewhat different approach in the
formation process from start to finish.
As a for instance, I may be able to go back and read two articles from
different ceramics magazines on building an extruder, and even though the
concept is the same, the bill of materials is different, and so is the
operation. One may operate vertically to make tall forms, and the other
horizontally to allow wire cutting to make multiple copies of a form.
Logan Oplinger
--
_______________________________________________
Sign-up for your own FREE Personalized E-mail at Mail.com
http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup
Janet Kaiser on fri 24 may 02
I agree with Craig Martell. It is sad that people appear so world
weary, so young. Been there, done that, got the teeshirt... Now move
on to the next thrill. I suppose we all thought we knew it all as
young whipper-snappers and I sound more like my grandmother with every
passing day for saying so.... But struth and hell's teeth!
Of course a quick flick through a magazine, just looking at pictures
comic-style is not going to bring huge insight or knowledge. Of course
methodology may appear or sound the same at a superficial level, but
often if one actually puts into practice what is preached, then there
can be huge differences. It is one thing reading an article and
saying, "Oh, yeah, I know that" and actually putting the words into
practice manually. Sitting down and actually doing what is described
is a whole different ball game, believe me! Like when people who are
learning to draw, draw what they think they see and not what their
eyes are witnessing... So it is with an article or description... Past
personal experience stored in the brain will keep interfering with
what is really being described and imparted!!!
"Knowing is doing. Doing is knowing"
I personally love going through old editions of magazines, right back
to the 1970s and even earlier in Old Potters' homes. Nothing new? I
would dare to violently contradict and say that every single pot or
technique ever seen in print has something new to offer and it is
amazing how fast taste, fashion and style changes. When I was a
student back in the 70s, we thought there was so much cutting edge
work and yet it looks tame and staid to many eyes (including my own)
30 years down the line. What were we all so excited about? Why did we
pour over articles and discuss them volubly over endless cups of
coffee/pints of beer? Because suddenly "ceramics" was freed from the
constraints of pure functionality and the aesthetics of our parents
and forefathers who had cabinets full of antique Wedgwood and Royal
Worcester. We suddenly saw and understood there were endless ways and
directions in which to develop...
That has not diminished over the years. Maybe the seminal lesson "the
sky is the limit" has become a jaded and overstated concept these
days, where everyone is being taught to do their own thing with little
regard to learning the obligatory basic skills. The resulting
pre-occupation in producing "original art" must be a very stressful
atmosphere in which to acquire the foundation of skill and
craftsmanship, necessary in all good fine and craft art.
Janet Kaiser - suffering the tail-end of the bad weather state-side...
Gale force winds and lashing rain. At least is will clean the salt off
the windows. Could not see through the windows this morning.
The Chapel of Art / Capel Celfyddyd
Home of The International Potters' Path
8 Marine Crescent : Criccieth : GB-Wales
URL: http://www.the-coa.org.uk
postbox@the-coa.org.uk
----- Original Message -----
> The folks who find most ceramic publications too repetetive to be of
any
> interest must have powers of perception beyond anything I can grasp.
I
> mean, I've been reading CM, Studio Potter, Ceramic Review, Pottery
in
> Australia, etc for decades and always find something of interest.
>
> You people remind me of some customers I've run across who never see
> anything new in a person's work unless the change is so radical that
the
> work appears to have been done by someone else. The idea of lateral
growth
> and nuance is something that doesn't reveal itself to a person who
looks
> quickly and heads out for a cappucino and some provocative
> conversation. We need to take time to absorb what's presented to us
before
> we deem anything as repetetive and not worth our consideration.
>
> regards, Craig Martell in Oregon
Martin Rice on fri 24 may 02
Janet said:
"Knowing is doing. Doing is knowing"
I couldn't agree more. Another way I've thought of it is "understanding
isn't
knowing." I used to apply that to the study of foreign languages. You can
understand, say, a grammar explanation in a text book when you read it, but
knowing it without the text is a whole different ball game, not to mention
being able to apply it.
This has certainly been my learner's experience with clay. I read the books
over and over, look at the pictures a thousand times, indeed, while
throwing. But translating what I see on the pages to what my hands are doing
just illustrates perfectly how understanding isn't knowing.
When I first got into computing back in 1979, I subscribed to all the
computer magazines and journals that then existed. In that case I didn't
even understand what I was reading. But I continually went back to them as
they piled up those first couple of years. Each time I would be able to
understand
another article -- or part of one. I continuted to reread those that I
understood, as well as
those I didn't. And little by little I was able to know (= master [at
least to a certain degree]) what I eventually came to understand.
I think this process is universal in the acquisition of any knowedge and
skill.
Regards,
Martin
Lagunas de Barú, Costa Rica
www.rice-family.org
Lois Ruben Aronow on mon 27 may 02
You hit on the reason I no longer have interest in CM. I prefer the
british magazine Ceramics Review. The difference is simple: CM is
more of a "how to". I'm not really interested in how an artists makes
their work, unless they have a new and interesting technique. In this
case, I'd prefer to know how they arrived at this newfound knowledge
and skill.
Ceramics Review is more of a "why". Why and artist makes the work
they do. How were they influenced. How they arrived at the place
they are at in their work and where they are going with it. =20
I'd always prefer to read about the creative process rather than the
technical one. CM bores me to no end.
--------------------------------------------
Lois Ruben Aronow
gilois@bellatlantic.net
=46ine Craft Porcelain
http://www.loisaronow.com
| |
|
