Snail Scott on sun 10 nov 02
At 03:03 AM 11/11/02 +0000, you wrote:
>BTW I am personally more than a little disturbed by the clumping together
>of MO pots as if they were just one heterogeneous "product". When I first
>heard talk about MO, I thought it was reference to a woman... Marta being
>the first name and Ortiz the last. And I had not idea MO was in MEXICO for
>goodness sake! Another selling ploy? Nothing Mexican would sell otherwise?
>How sad!
I think it's not any desire to be though of as 'un-
Mexican'. It's just that for most people, the term
'Mexican pottery' brings to mind red earthenware,
often colorfully glazed. Mata Ortiz work is quite
unrelated to the pottery typically sold as Mexican.
(I do think that most people know that Mata Ortiz
is a town (or at least a place-name) in Mexico.
Mata, not Marta. Certainly it's no secret! Nor
a racist plot, either.) It does remain a sad fact
that 'typical' Mexican pottery today retains a
reputation for being cheap, interchangeable, and
of suspect quality and safety, so I can scarcely
blame the early sellers of Mata Ortiz pottery for
emphasizing the distinct nature of the work made
there, calling it 'Mata Ortiz' pottery first, and
'Mexican', second. (I think that marketing people
call the practice 'brand recognition'.) Mata
Ortiz work is never confused with other Mexican
pottery, because it is marketed as a clearly
different thing, as a distinctive style of
ceramic art/craft, not lost and scattered amongst
the dinnerware, flowerpots and chimineas. It's not
that the 'regular' Mexican stuff won't sell; it's
that it has a particular (and popular) niche of
its own which would be inappropriate to the Mata
Ortiz work. And yes, it's a lower-priced market,
too. Calling the Mata Ortiz work by a distinctive
overarching label allows it to escape that low-end
ghetto. 'Mexican pottery' gets Truckload Clearance
Sales; 'Mata Ortiz pottery' gets museum exhibitions.
>We can no
>longer say American, English or Japanese (insert the name of any town or
>region such as Seagrove, Cornwall or Mashiko here) makers without making a
>HUGE generalisation, so why should we clump all MO makers together?
Well, we still make such generalizations, whether
we refer to 'Arita porcelain' or 'Bay Area Funk'.
Humans are generalizing animals; it's how we frame
our incoming information into patterns for ready
comprehension. It's always an oversimplification,
but occasionally a useful tool. And in this case,
since the pottery made in Mata Ortiz does stem from
a common root, and retains a distinct style even
through all the varied adaptations of it by many
makers, it seems a worthwhile generalization to
make. Especially for the makers, who gain a great
deal by being identified with a well-known idiom,
even if they themselves have only limited
personal fame.
-Snail
Snail Scott on sun 10 nov 02
At 05:58 PM 11/10/02 +0000, you wrote:
>When Elizabeth Ross held her
>talk on Mexican ceramics -- Ceramica Mexicana: pre-Hispanic to modern times
>-- here last month, there were a couple of images of firings taking place
>in Marta Ortiz...
>I remember that
>there was wood piled loosely around the pots and I think we were all amazed
>that they could fire with so little fuel in such a short time. I know the
>round open-topped kiln was covered with broken pots, so at what stage do
>cow pats enter the equation?
Dunno about that. The Mata Ortiz potters that
I learned from used two methods, whipped up
from available stuff in New Mexico where they
were visiting. Whiteware pots were fired
individually using Wal-Mart flowerpots for
saggars. (Old shards are also used if available,
but those cheap flowerpots are really handy,
even for potters. They said they used them in
Mexico, too, and were planning to bring more
back with them.) Three nails (or shards, but
NO rocks) were pushed into the ground to form
a 'stilt' the size of the pot. The ground
was lightly sprinkled with broken-up cow pies.
The pre-heated pot was removed from the house
oven in a blanket and positioned on the 'stilt'.
The flowerpot was placed upside-down over the
pot, on shards pushed into the ground to keep
it up an inch or so in the air. The cowpies were
stacked to cover the flowerpot 1-2 layers deep.
The bottom of the pile was torched off in
several spots. When it began to burn down, the
cowpie on top of the hole was knocked off, then
the cowpies were cleared away, to allow air
to enter the saggar and clear out any smoke.
(This all takes less than an hour.) Then you
wait 'til it all cools off a bit, and remove
the flowerpot. For blackware, they used an old
washtub to fire a dozen small pots at once.
The process was similar to the one described
above, except that more crumbled cowpies were
put on the ground under the pots, and all the
cowpies remained in place until cooling. The
whiteware pots were clean and un-smoke-marked;
the blackware was an evenly dense black.
No kiln, no wood. Shards optional. (This was
about ten years ago.)
-Snail
Janet Kaiser on sun 10 nov 02
This is all becoming very confusing to me. When Elizabeth Ross held her
talk on Mexican ceramics -- Ceramica Mexicana: pre-Hispanic to modern times
-- here last month, there were a couple of images of firings taking place
in Marta Ortiz. Not a cow pat in sight or on site... Or was I being very
inattentive after seeing so much exciting work and methods from all over
Mexico? Or confusing a different site with Marta Ortiz? I remember that
there was wood piled loosely around the pots and I think we were all amazed
that they could fire with so little fuel in such a short time. I know the
round open-topped kiln was covered with broken pots, so at what stage do
cow pats enter the equation? Or am I confusing everyone else, as well as
myself now?
If what is considered to be "genuine" Marta Ortiz ware needs cow dung and
there is still plenty available, can it be that as people earn money and
enjoy a certain amount of comfort, they are not willing to travel out long
distances collecting the necessary cow fuel by hand and on foot? Children
go to school and no longer provide free labour... All sorts of reasons for
apparent non-availability to the casual onlooker.
Although the search for alternatives is purely academic here (because these
self-sufficient and resourceful people no doubt have their own solutions
without outside help), the only "genuine" alternative to cows would have to
be not only vegetarian but grass eaters (is there a scientific name for
them?). Remember there is a huge amount of silica in grass. That is how a
blade of grass can cut you... The silica (glass) is set along the edges as
a protection mechanism for the plant. Archaeologists can even tell what
variety of grass extinct animals ate by the distinctive patterns each type
scratched on their teeth.
Cow, sheep, goat, rabbit, deer, elk, reindeer and horse droppings all burn
well when dried because of the all the undigested fibres... Similar but not
as long burning as wood because it is not as dense. But the great advantage
cow dung has over all the other herbivores, is that they make nice useful
pats which dry out quickly and are practically odourless. Ready-made for
easy collection, storage and use. They must also have a higher grass (=3D
silica) content because they eat grass exclusively, whereas the other
vegetarians tend to be browsers and enjoy a more mixed diet including other
plants such as lichens, herbs, shrubs, tree leaves, etc.
All excrement from carnivores or omnivores (including humans, pigs and
vultures :-) are not only a health hazard because of the fat content and
capacity to carry and spread disease, but would not produce the right
combination or amount of energy when combusted. The malodorous nature of
such practice would also be unbearable! This may be the third world, but
healthy and sanitary working methods are just as important to these people
and it is not at all useful to suggest anything which would compromise
that!
To be utterly flippant without wishing hardship and disease upon them...
Move the makers to AUSTRALIA! The cow was introduced by Europeans there too
but they do not have the right kind of dung beetles to deal with this
bi-product: an apparently valuable resource. There are huge herds too,
hence the dreadful plague of flies. Or maybe they could teach all the
Australian farmers to become potters? The continuing drought is reducing
their stock and many are suffering hardship, so maybe they could diversify
with the help of these wonderfully resourceful Mexican potters?
Well, you did say "side bar", Mel... :-)
Sincerely
Janet Kaiser
The Chapel of Art =95 Capel Celfyddyd
8 Marine Crescent, Criccieth LL52 0EA, Wales, UK
Tel: 01766-523570 URL: http://www.the-coa.org.uk
Spencer H. MacCallum on sun 10 nov 02
Janet, thanks for all the interesting supplemental information about cow
chips! And Australia! Actually, the shortage of chow chips is not a serious
problem in Mata Ortiz. As you say, "the search for alternatives is purely
academic here (because these self-sufficient and resourceful people no doubt
have their own solutions without outside help)." Plenty of suitable dried
vegetal material is available locally. Bark from dead cottonwood is ideal
but no longer permitted because conservationists have succeeded in getting a
law against it--despite the potters' insistance (which I believe,
incidentally) that they would never kill their beautiful cottonwood trees
for that purpose.The reason you saw no cow chips was because, indeed, the
potters' needs have outstripped the productive capacity of their cattle.
Wood of various kinds is often used today quite satisfactorily. -Spencer
----- Original Message -----
From: "Janet Kaiser"
To:
Sent: Sunday, November 10, 2002 9:58 AM
Subject: Confusing information, grass and glass (was: Mata Ortiz, side bar)
This is all becoming very confusing to me. When Elizabeth Ross held her
talk on Mexican ceramics -- Ceramica Mexicana: pre-Hispanic to modern times
-- here last month, there were a couple of images of firings taking place
in Marta Ortiz. Not a cow pat in sight or on site... Or was I being very
inattentive after seeing so much exciting work and methods from all over
Mexico? Or confusing a different site with Marta Ortiz? I remember that
there was wood piled loosely around the pots and I think we were all amazed
that they could fire with so little fuel in such a short time. I know the
round open-topped kiln was covered with broken pots, so at what stage do
cow pats enter the equation? Or am I confusing everyone else, as well as
myself now?
If what is considered to be "genuine" Marta Ortiz ware needs cow dung and
there is still plenty available, can it be that as people earn money and
enjoy a certain amount of comfort, they are not willing to travel out long
distances collecting the necessary cow fuel by hand and on foot? Children
go to school and no longer provide free labour... All sorts of reasons for
apparent non-availability to the casual onlooker.
Although the search for alternatives is purely academic here (because these
self-sufficient and resourceful people no doubt have their own solutions
without outside help), the only "genuine" alternative to cows would have to
be not only vegetarian but grass eaters (is there a scientific name for
them?). Remember there is a huge amount of silica in grass. That is how a
blade of grass can cut you... The silica (glass) is set along the edges as
a protection mechanism for the plant. Archaeologists can even tell what
variety of grass extinct animals ate by the distinctive patterns each type
scratched on their teeth.
Cow, sheep, goat, rabbit, deer, elk, reindeer and horse droppings all burn
well when dried because of the all the undigested fibres... Similar but not
as long burning as wood because it is not as dense. But the great advantage
cow dung has over all the other herbivores, is that they make nice useful
pats which dry out quickly and are practically odourless. Ready-made for
easy collection, storage and use. They must also have a higher grass (=
silica) content because they eat grass exclusively, whereas the other
vegetarians tend to be browsers and enjoy a more mixed diet including other
plants such as lichens, herbs, shrubs, tree leaves, etc.
All excrement from carnivores or omnivores (including humans, pigs and
vultures :-) are not only a health hazard because of the fat content and
capacity to carry and spread disease, but would not produce the right
combination or amount of energy when combusted. The malodorous nature of
such practice would also be unbearable! This may be the third world, but
healthy and sanitary working methods are just as important to these people
and it is not at all useful to suggest anything which would compromise
that!
To be utterly flippant without wishing hardship and disease upon them...
Move the makers to AUSTRALIA! The cow was introduced by Europeans there too
but they do not have the right kind of dung beetles to deal with this
bi-product: an apparently valuable resource. There are huge herds too,
hence the dreadful plague of flies. Or maybe they could teach all the
Australian farmers to become potters? The continuing drought is reducing
their stock and many are suffering hardship, so maybe they could diversify
with the help of these wonderfully resourceful Mexican potters?
Well, you did say "side bar", Mel... :-)
Sincerely
Janet Kaiser
The Chapel of Art . Capel Celfyddyd
8 Marine Crescent, Criccieth LL52 0EA, Wales, UK
Tel: 01766-523570 URL: http://www.the-coa.org.uk
____________________________________________________________________________
__
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.
Spencer H. MacCallum on mon 11 nov 02
Janet, thanks for the international perspective from Wales! Snail Scott
addressed many of the points in your message, but here's some further input.
If I understand your post, you're saying that process ought not factor
into a person's decision whether to buy a Mata Ortiz pot. A person should
only consider the finished product. There is a danger here that you may find
yourself telling collectors they should adopt your standards, not their own.
But when you stop to consider, whose money are they spending?
I don't know what items you carry in your gallery, but surely some trade
on process. Articles made on a knitting machine, for example, are not as
prized as those made by hand--even though you get terrific designs with a
knitting machine. At least ten percent of the value of such work is in the
art of the process.
The only "problem" in the Mata Ortiz market today is that which arises
in any market is when a buyer gets something other than what he thinks he is
getting when he puts down his money. When this happens, people lose
confidence in the market and withdraw. Now in Mata Ortiz, those who would
withdraw would be those for whom process is an important consideration. If
they don't withdraw entirely, they'll pay less for the pottery. Do you have
any idea how large a part of the collectors' market that is? I can show you
evidence that it's an overwhelming segment of the market, and that the loss
of that segment would reverberate all the way down the line to the least
expensive pottery in Mata Ortiz.
I sympathize with your wish to have Mata Ortiz pottery judged solely by
fine arts standards. I've a Princeton art history background and am fully in
accord with those in the art world who regard the better work from Mata
Ortiz not as craft but contemporary fine art. It's fine art in an unexpected
medium and from an unexpected place. But consider that these artists don't
have the options that studio artists have in the United States and other
countries. If their industry fails, what have they to turn to? So don't
grudge them the opportunity to sell their work to those who will offer them
the most money. Families in the village are now staying together the year
around (because the men don't have to go to the U.S. to find work), women
have access to an independent source of income, and children are beginning
to attend university. And as for the art, marketing art neither taints it
nor blinds perceptive people to its innate aesthetic quality.
The collectors' market we've been discussing was not created by "stories
told" about Mata Ortiz pottery. It long antedated Juan Quezada. The world is
fortunate that this market has discovered him and the other talented artists
of Mata Ortiz. -Spencer
Spencer and Emalie MacCallum
Box 180
Tonopah, NV 89049
775-482-2038 . Fax 5897
sm@look.net
----- Original Message -----
From: "Janet Kaiser"
To:
Sent: Sunday, November 10, 2002 7:03 PM
Subject: Re: Confusing information, grass and glass (was: mata ortiz, side
bar)
Spencer dear, I am getting more confused by the minute!
So Marta Ortiz (MO) potters use wood? There is plenty of sawdust which
could be used... Wood is harvested in the mountains? Cow dung is not really
necessary..? The only "problem" as you perceive it, is purely in the
"marketing"? You need tests which would prove one way or another how a pot
was fired?
Am I right in thinking you (and others) have been extolling the cow pat
firing aspect of MO production? Making this a "muck and magic" thing to
promote sales? If so... and correct me if I am wrong...
Then I am afraid IMHO that this is interfering with and distracting from
the true strength of these truly amasing pots... From what I have seen (and
this is precious little beyond photos) they really do not need this "extra
promotion" any more.
They may have done when you first discovered and promoted them, but these
pots are superb, no matter how they are fired these days. If the QUALITY of
the pots -- the end product -- is right, the method of firing is neither
here nor there. It comes back to the individual potters and their work...
Those who are masters and those who are only "wannabes".
Just like any potter in any pottery producing area in the world from the
Catskills, USA to Cornwall, UK to Coromandel, NZ... There are good and bad
potters, with a whole gamut of those in between. Let's face it -- LOCATION
is actually neither here nor there!
OK... The mystery and romantic glamour makes the "selling sizzle" all the
easier for the seller/gallery/promoter... But, hey! that is no longer
really necessary with MO pots of the highest order... Let's face it, if a
silly little gallerist in Criccieth, Wales (a pimple on the Arsch der Welt)
knows all about these truly magnificent pots... Do they still need this
sort of "promotion"? Is the firing method a worry? No, of course not! I
think one needs some sort of perspective here.
BTW I am personally more than a little disturbed by the clumping together
of MO pots as if they were just one heterogeneous "product". When I first
heard talk about MO, I thought it was reference to a woman... Marta being
the first name and Ortiz the last. And I had not idea MO was in MEXICO for
goodness sake! Another selling ploy? Nothing Mexican would sell otherwise?
How sad!
As a gallerist as well as a pot lover and lapsed maker, I do not think this
is at all helpful. I do not blame anyone personally for this, but it is
another indication of how simple marketing and promotion helps to promote a
sort of arrogance towards a whole society of "primitive" makers. We can no
longer say American, English or Japanese (insert the name of any town or
region such as Seagrove, Cornwall or Mashiko here) makers without making a
HUGE generalisation, so why should we clump all MO makers together? As my
US roomy would say, "It just ain't right ma'am"! :-)
Sincerely
Janet Kaiser
The Chapel of Art . Capel Celfyddyd
8 Marine Crescent, Criccieth LL52 0EA, Wales, UK
Tel: 01766-523570 URL: http://www.the-coa.org.uk
____________________________________________________________________________
__
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.
Janet Kaiser on mon 11 nov 02
Spencer dear, I am getting more confused by the minute!
So Marta Ortiz (MO) potters use wood? There is plenty of sawdust which
could be used... Wood is harvested in the mountains? Cow dung is not really
necessary..? The only "problem" as you perceive it, is purely in the
"marketing"? You need tests which would prove one way or another how a pot
was fired?
Am I right in thinking you (and others) have been extolling the cow pat
firing aspect of MO production? Making this a "muck and magic" thing to
promote sales? If so... and correct me if I am wrong...
Then I am afraid IMHO that this is interfering with and distracting from
the true strength of these truly amasing pots... From what I have seen (and
this is precious little beyond photos) they really do not need this "extra
promotion" any more.
They may have done when you first discovered and promoted them, but these
pots are superb, no matter how they are fired these days. If the QUALITY of
the pots -- the end product -- is right, the method of firing is neither
here nor there. It comes back to the individual potters and their work...
Those who are masters and those who are only "wannabes".
Just like any potter in any pottery producing area in the world from the
Catskills, USA to Cornwall, UK to Coromandel, NZ... There are good and bad
potters, with a whole gamut of those in between. Let's face it -- LOCATION
is actually neither here nor there!
OK... The mystery and romantic glamour makes the "selling sizzle" all the
easier for the seller/gallery/promoter... But, hey! that is no longer
really necessary with MO pots of the highest order... Let's face it, if a
silly little gallerist in Criccieth, Wales (a pimple on the Arsch der Welt)
knows all about these truly magnificent pots... Do they still need this
sort of "promotion"? Is the firing method a worry? No, of course not! I
think one needs some sort of perspective here.
BTW I am personally more than a little disturbed by the clumping together
of MO pots as if they were just one heterogeneous "product". When I first
heard talk about MO, I thought it was reference to a woman... Marta being
the first name and Ortiz the last. And I had not idea MO was in MEXICO for
goodness sake! Another selling ploy? Nothing Mexican would sell otherwise?
How sad!
As a gallerist as well as a pot lover and lapsed maker, I do not think this
is at all helpful. I do not blame anyone personally for this, but it is
another indication of how simple marketing and promotion helps to promote a
sort of arrogance towards a whole society of "primitive" makers. We can no
longer say American, English or Japanese (insert the name of any town or
region such as Seagrove, Cornwall or Mashiko here) makers without making a
HUGE generalisation, so why should we clump all MO makers together? As my
US roomy would say, "It just ain't right ma'am"! :-)
Sincerely
Janet Kaiser
The Chapel of Art =95 Capel Celfyddyd
8 Marine Crescent, Criccieth LL52 0EA, Wales, UK
Tel: 01766-523570 URL: http://www.the-coa.org.uk
Spencer H. MacCallum on tue 12 nov 02
Janet, you've some well thought out points. Usually, artists have a little
more freedom to say yes or no to market demands than these potters do in
Mata Ortiz. These people haven't as many alternative income options. I
suspect that if the potters begin identifying their traditionally made pots
by a tiny die-stamp mark in the clay by their signature, then they may be
free to make pottery by whatever method they wish, and the buyers will be
free to choose whichever they prefer. In this way, collectors may become
accustomed (educated, if you will) to commercial kiln firing and more
receptive, while still retaining the option of buying the other. In that
case, it will be interesting to see what difference the die mark will have
on prices of Mata Ortiz pottery at auction.
On the firing question, it appears I misunderstood you. The issue is not
between wood or cow chips; that makes no difference at all to collectors.
The issue is between firing outdoors in wood or cow chips and using gas or
electric kilns. This is not the only area of concern on the part of
collectors, but it's the one that is at the forefront right now. Such
"traditional" firing is deceptively simple; it requires a lot of knowledge
and art. There's also a wonderful drama about it. People will drive 200
miles to see such a firing who wouldn't walk across the street to see a pot
fired in an electric kiln. A couple of weeks ago, Juan Quezada did a firing
at the Heard Museum in Phoenix. It was a wood fire at night, lightning
crackling across the sky several times, a large circle of people in the
dark, Walter Parks and I narrating, telling stories, translating questions
directed to Juan, good fellowship, and the suspense as to whether Juan's pot
would come out safely (it had already cracked in the preheating when someone
raised the temperature too quickly, but no one was told that). People
always vie with each other to buy the pot that comes out of the fire, even
though there may be plenty more and perhaps better on the shelf. Wonderfully
understated showmanship and drama. This is the kind of experience many
people associate with their Mata Ortiz pottery.
For the past half-dozen years, we've held an annual "Gathering of
Traders" to discuss issues of all kinds about Mata Ortiz. It's not limited
to traders, and never really was, but is a gathering of an entire
cross-section of the "Mata Ortiz extended family:" traders, artists,
writers, gallery owners, museum people, collectors, tour operators,
educators, all of whom have an active involvement interest in the village.
Usually some 50 people attend, but next year the number may be greater
because we'll meet in Mexico, in the pueblo of Casas Grandes about 15 miles
from Mata Ortiz, and are expecting a lot of the potters to show up. I make a
point of mentioning this because, if you'll be in the country at the time
(October 11th, 2003), you'll be more than welcome to attend. The same goes
for anyone else on this list who feels a special kinship with Mata Ortiz.
The program is described in the Mata Ortiz Calendar of Events, a
free-on-request monthly publication by email (sm@look.net) that Emi and I
have put out for the last several years. -Spencer
----- Original Message -----
From: "Janet Kaiser"
To:
Sent: Monday, November 11, 2002 7:36 PM
Subject: Re: Confusing information, grass and glass (was: mata ortiz, side
bar)
And thank you for your reply Spencer.
>If I understand your post, you're saying that process ought not factor
>into a person's decision whether to buy a Mata Ortiz pot. A person should
>only consider the finished product. There is a danger here that you may
>find yourself telling collectors they should adopt your standards, not
their
>own. But when you stop to consider, whose money are they spending?
I do not have a problem with spending other people's money! I run a gallery
after all :-) But seriously, in the case of Mata Ortiz I do not personally
see why the specific firing method is of such importance. Whether cow pats
or wood, it will remain "primitive" and equally valid.
>I don't know what items you carry in your gallery, but surely some
>trade on process. Articles made on a knitting machine, for example, are
>not as prized as those made by hand--even though you get terrific designs
with a
>knitting machine. At least ten percent of the value of such work is in the
>art of the process.
Yes, certainly. And the hand-burnished work by makers such as Linda John
and Susan Luker are sold "at a premium". Again, it is the work and not the
firing method which is deciding factor, NOT the firing method.
> The only "problem" in the Mata Ortiz market today is that which arises
>in any market is when a buyer gets something other than what he thinks he
>is getting when he puts down his money. When this happens, people lose
>confidence in the market and withdraw. Now in Mata Ortiz, those who would
>withdraw would be those for whom process is an important consideration. If
>they don't withdraw entirely, they'll pay less for the pottery. Do you
>have any idea how large a part of the collectors' market that is? I can
show
>you evidence that it's an overwhelming segment of the market, and that the
>loss of that segment would reverberate all the way down the line to the
least
>expensive pottery in Mata Ortiz.
Whilst I understand the basis of your concern, Spencer, and appreciate that
buyers are concerned with process, I am still unconvinced about the firing
aspect being the one and only concern. Nor would a deviation in method
produce the far-reaching repercussion you envision. This is only my
personal view but as a long-time gallerist, I would question the basic
premiss that a change from one fuel to another would affect the market to
the degree you suggest. Again, it would all rest on the way in which the
whole issue is handled and "marketed". As you are rightly concerned with
the ethics of the situation, it would be in everyone's interest to start
the ball rolling along alternative lines... Such as environmental ones. The
strengths (and weaknesses) of any marketing situation can be used to great
effect, as you know.
>I sympathize with your wish to have Mata Ortiz pottery judged solely by
>fine arts standards. I've a Princeton art history background and am fully
>in accord with those in the art world who regard the better work from Mata
>Ortiz not as craft but contemporary fine art. It's fine art in an
unexpected
>medium and from an unexpected place. But consider that these artists don't
>have the options that studio artists have in the United States and other
>countries. If their industry fails, what have they to turn to? So don't
grudge
>them the opportunity to sell their work to those who will offer them the
>most money. Families in the village are now staying together the year
>around (because the men don't have to go to the U.S. to find work),
>women have access to an independent source of income, and children
>are beginning to attend university. And as for the art, marketing art
neither
>taints it nor blinds perceptive people to its innate aesthetic quality.
I think you must have misunderstood my post. I do not grudge the makers of
Mata Ortiz anything at all! On the contrary, I would hope that the "market"
would be accommodating enough to allow them to diversify as their local
conditions dictate. I was only concerned that the "market" was dictating so
much and they (as artists and makers) would not be able to fulfill the
demands imposed upon them by others... My thoughts were more concerned with
their welfare and continued success despite these external pressures.
>The collectors' market we've been discussing was not created by "stories
>told" about Mata Ortiz pottery. It long antedated Juan Quezada. The world
>is fortunate that this market has discovered him and the other talented
>artists of Mata Ortiz
Yes, indeed. Which brings me back to the thought that the pots speak for
themselves! It seems to me that the precise firing process is (very)
secondary and of much lesser importance than the other aspects of
production. The present purist attitude towards the making is obviously not
in the Mata Ortiz makers' long-term interest, so there should be ways and
means of accommodating the inevitable change to their production methods.
It is to your credit that you have recognized this before it actually
happens, so you will have time to re-educate the market.
But that would be MY choice... Perhaps it would be a valid one? NOT
imposing external demands on these makers, but allowing them to change as
circumstance demands?
Sincerely
Janet Kaiser
The Chapel of Art . Capel Celfyddyd
8 Marine Crescent, Criccieth LL52 0EA, Wales, UK
Tel: 01766-523570 URL: http://www.the-coa.org.uk
Janet Kaiser on tue 12 nov 02
And thank you for your reply Spencer.
>If I understand your post, you're saying that process ought not factor
>into a person's decision whether to buy a Mata Ortiz pot. A person should
>only consider the finished product. There is a danger here that you may
find
>yourself telling collectors they should adopt your standards, not their
own.
>But when you stop to consider, whose money are they spending?
I do not have a problem with spending other people's money! I run a gallery
after all :-) But seriously, in the case of Mata Ortiz I do not personally
see why the specific firing method is of such importance. Whether cow pats
or wood, it will remain "primitive" and equally valid.
>
>I don't know what items you carry in your gallery, but surely some
>trade on process. Articles made on a knitting machine, for example, are
not as
>prized as those made by hand--even though you get terrific designs with a
>knitting machine. At least ten percent of the value of such work is in the
>art of the process.
Yes, certainly. And the hand-burnished work by makers such as Linda John
and Susan Luker are sold "at a premium". Again, it is the work and not the
firing method which is deciding factor, NOT the firing method.
>
> The only "problem" in the Mata Ortiz market today is that which arises
>in any market is when a buyer gets something other than what he thinks he
is
>getting when he puts down his money. When this happens, people lose
>confidence in the market and withdraw. Now in Mata Ortiz, those who would
>withdraw would be those for whom process is an important consideration. If
>they don't withdraw entirely, they'll pay less for the pottery. Do you
have
>any idea how large a part of the collectors' market that is? I can show
you
>evidence that it's an overwhelming segment of the market, and that the
loss
>of that segment would reverberate all the way down the line to the least
>expensive pottery in Mata Ortiz.
Whilst I understand the basis of your concern, Spencer, and appreciate that
buyers are concerned with process, I am still unconvinced about the firing
aspect being the one and only concern. Nor would a deviation in method
produce the far-reaching repercussion you envision. This is only my
personal view but as a long-time gallerist, I would question the basic
premiss that a change from one fuel to another would affect the market to
the degree you suggest. Again, it would all rest on the way in which the
whole issue is handled and "marketed". As you are rightly concerned with
the ethics of the situation, it would be in everyone's interest to start
the ball rolling along alternative lines... Such as environmental ones. The
strengths (and weaknesses) of any marketing situation can be used to great
effect, as you know.
>I sympathize with your wish to have Mata Ortiz pottery judged solely by
>fine arts standards. I've a Princeton art history background and am fully
in
>accord with those in the art world who regard the better work from Mata
>Ortiz not as craft but contemporary fine art. It's fine art in an
unexpected
>medium and from an unexpected place. But consider that these artists don't
>have the options that studio artists have in the United States and other
>countries. If their industry fails, what have they to turn to? So don't
>grudge them the opportunity to sell their work to those who will offer
them
>the most money. Families in the village are now staying together the year
>around (because the men don't have to go to the U.S. to find work), women
>have access to an independent source of income, and children are beginning
>to attend university. And as for the art, marketing art neither taints it
>nor blinds perceptive people to its innate aesthetic quality.
I think you must have misunderstood my post. I do not grudge the makers of
Mata Ortiz anything at all! On the contrary, I would hope that the "market"
would be accommodating enough to allow them to diversify as their local
conditions dictate. I was only concerned that the "market" was dictating so
much and they (as artists and makers) would not be able to fulfill the
demands imposed upon them by others... My thoughts were more concerned with
their welfare and continued success despite these external pressures.
>
>The collectors' market we've been discussing was not created by "stories
>told" about Mata Ortiz pottery. It long antedated Juan Quezada. The world
is
>fortunate that this market has discovered him and the other talented
artists
>of Mata Ortiz
Yes, indeed. Which brings me back to the thought that the pots speak for
themselves! It seems to me that the precise firing process is (very)
secondary and of much lesser importance than the other aspects of
production. The present purist attitude towards the making is obviously not
in the Mata Ortiz makers' long-term interest, so there should be ways and
means of accommodating the inevitable change to their production methods.
It is to your credit that you have recognised this before it actually
happens, so you will have time to re-educate the market.
But that would be MY choice... Perhaps it would be a valid one? NOT
imposing external demands on these makers, but allowing them to change as
circumstance demands?
Sincerely
Janet Kaiser
The Chapel of Art =95 Capel Celfyddyd
8 Marine Crescent, Criccieth LL52 0EA, Wales, UK
Tel: 01766-523570 URL: http://www.the-coa.org.uk
| |
|
