Rick on thu 22 may 03

I am absolutely flabbergasted. I don't believe I have ever read such
an outpouring of uninformed nonsense. Putting the shoe on the other
foot, have you looked at some of the stuff in pottery magazines that is
touted as -- well, for lack of a better word -- pottery? Yet, nary a
peep from anyone --- good, bad, or indifferent. As Snail says, there
seems to be a lack of ability to look at things on different planes.

Rick
On 2003.May.22, at 02:52 PM, Snail Scott wrote:

> At 04:47 PM 5/21/03 -0500, you wrote:
>> Its body actually looks molded because of the
>> bottom text riding on the surface. I don't see the point if it is
>> slipcasted other than if he felt he couldn't get the raised surface
>> any
>> other way...
>
>
> (I think that they were individually thrown, but
> on a plaster bat with the words incised into the
> bat's surface in reverse.)
>
>
> I don't mind that many people on this list hate
> these mugs; I'm not wild about them, either.
> What bothers me is the total lack of thought and
> consideration that has gone into many of the
> responses I've read. Do you always evaluate what
> you see so briefly and superficially? (Lumpy
> handle or untrimmed bottom = therefore crap!)
> No wonder so many potters seem confused by
> contemporary art...it might take them more than
> an instant to THINK about the IDEAS involved!
>
> I don't believe that these mugs are the epitome
> of pottery as fine art. But, they did involve
> at least some thought on the part of the artist,
> to take 'coffee mug' beyond its basic attributes
> and into another realm, where more than one set
> of criteria might be brought to bear toward its
> evaluation.
>
> I don't demand that every work of contemporary
> art be held up as a work of genius - after all,
> most of it's not, and a lot of it is truly rotten.
> But that's why it's needful to actually LOOK and
> THINK about what's being presented. To paraphrase
> Theodore Sturgeon, 90% of contemporary art is
> crap, but so is 90% of everything else. How can
> you know the difference if you don't take time to
> critically evaluate what you see? You don't have
> to 'get it right', you don't have to like it, you
> don't have to approve of its existence or even
> understand it, but please, show me that you based
> your opinion on some minimum amount of thought!
>
> -Snail
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> _______
> 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.
>

Brenda Anderson on thu 22 may 03

Snail, I liked your response. Here is mine.

When I first read some of the emails on the cups and other works, I clicked
on the exhibition with an expectation of something horrible. But, as I
viewed them, I realized that this was an artist's interpretation of his
inner artistic abilities as all of our works are. Not, I would pay that
much for a cup but who knows what fancies one person and not the next.

They kind of grow on you. Having traveled a great deal, I realize that all
folks are different and so are their likes, dislikes, attitudes and
preferences.

Brenda

"He is the potter, we are the clay---------"
----- Original Message -----
From: "Snail Scott"
To:
Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2003 12:52 AM
Subject: Re: Koie Ryoji On-line Exhibition


> At 04:47 PM 5/21/03 -0500, you wrote:
> >Its body actually looks molded because of the
> >bottom text riding on the surface. I don't see the point if it is
> >slipcasted other than if he felt he couldn't get the raised surface any
> >other way...
>
>
> (I think that they were individually thrown, but
> on a plaster bat with the words incised into the
> bat's surface in reverse.)
>
>
> I don't mind that many people on this list hate
> these mugs; I'm not wild about them, either.
> What bothers me is the total lack of thought and
> consideration that has gone into many of the
> responses I've read. Do you always evaluate what
> you see so briefly and superficially? (Lumpy
> handle or untrimmed bottom = therefore crap!)
> No wonder so many potters seem confused by
> contemporary art...it might take them more than
> an instant to THINK about the IDEAS involved!
>
> I don't believe that these mugs are the epitome
> of pottery as fine art. But, they did involve
> at least some thought on the part of the artist,
> to take 'coffee mug' beyond its basic attributes
> and into another realm, where more than one set
> of criteria might be brought to bear toward its
> evaluation.
>
> I don't demand that every work of contemporary
> art be held up as a work of genius - after all,
> most of it's not, and a lot of it is truly rotten.
> But that's why it's needful to actually LOOK and
> THINK about what's being presented. To paraphrase
> Theodore Sturgeon, 90% of contemporary art is
> crap, but so is 90% of everything else. How can
> you know the difference if you don't take time to
> critically evaluate what you see? You don't have
> to 'get it right', you don't have to like it, you
> don't have to approve of its existence or even
> understand it, but please, show me that you based
> your opinion on some minimum amount of thought!
>
> -Snail
>
>
____________________________________________________________________________
__
> 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.

Tony Ferguson on thu 22 may 03

Jeese, Snail,

Do you want a formalistic critique breaking each element down, tying and
weighing against both contemporary and historic Japanese as well as their
avant garde movments in clay contrasted to the Westerner European clay
tradition and all is variances? Shall we disucss the relationship and shape
of the protruding text on the bottom (possibly scratching a statement into a
table) with an event on our history and see if there is any relationship to
the rest of the form? How about the relationship of the cracked surface
with a white background of porcelain upon the conical form of the mug? Or,
the seemingly twisted handles and their relationship of attachment and their
scale to the top and bottom of the mug? Could the cracked porcelain surface
of the glaze reflect the superficiality of a "white" America and the twisted
handle reflect the twisted culture we live in which is poorly attached to
the body (the mug) of America? Etc, ad nausem.

I don't need hours or even minutes to recognize a good piece of clay or to
provide a boring evaluation like in graduate school. I would have liked to
see the mugs in person, but the pictures were enough to have made an
aethetic assault on my sensibilities and I am both a tight and loose potter
with sculptural and metaphorical tendencies.

I judged the mugs unto themselves. It is irrevelant if he is a "master" or
what he was attempting to do. I don't care if it was the pope's cup, the
president's cup, Ghandi's cup, if he melted a sewing machine in his kiln,
cooked pizza, whatever. If it doesn't work it doesn't work--for me--and
like anyone else, we are entilted to provide a critique when asked. I
didn't say they were good or bad for you or anyone else. We were asked to
critique the cup not critque the critquer or assume "no thought" went into
each our responses.

And by the way--there is nothing wrong with a lumpy handle as long as it
goes with the rest of the work--the rest of the work should be lumpy in some
way. AND, I did look at some of his other work and found very nice.


Thank you.

Tony Ferguson
On Lake Superior, where the sky meets the Lake

Stoneware, Porcelain, Raku and more
by Coleman, Ferguson, Winchester...
www.aquariusartgallery.com
218-727-6339
315 N. Lake Ave
Apt 312
Duluth, MN 55806




> I don't mind that many people on this list hate
> these mugs; I'm not wild about them, either.
> What bothers me is the total lack of thought and
> consideration that has gone into many of the
> responses I've read. Do you always evaluate what
> you see so briefly and superficially? (Lumpy
> handle or untrimmed bottom = therefore crap!)
> No wonder so many potters seem confused by
> contemporary art...it might take them more than
> an instant to THINK about the IDEAS involved!
>
> I don't believe that these mugs are the epitome
> of pottery as fine art. But, they did involve
> at least some thought on the part of the artist,
> to take 'coffee mug' beyond its basic attributes
> and into another realm, where more than one set
> of criteria might be brought to bear toward its
> evaluation.
>
> I don't demand that every work of contemporary
> art be held up as a work of genius - after all,
> most of it's not, and a lot of it is truly rotten.
> But that's why it's needful to actually LOOK and
> THINK about what's being presented. To paraphrase
> Theodore Sturgeon, 90% of contemporary art is
> crap, but so is 90% of everything else. How can
> you know the difference if you don't take time to
> critically evaluate what you see? You don't have
> to 'get it right', you don't have to like it, you
> don't have to approve of its existence or even
> understand it, but please, show me that you based
> your opinion on some minimum amount of thought!
>
> -Snail
>
>
____________________________________________________________________________
__
> 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.
>

Kathi LeSueur on thu 22 may 03

jnybravo2@YAHOO.COM wrote:

>On Tuesday, May 20, 2003 Butch wrote:
>
>"Is this art? Is it overfired glaze?>>>
>

>Some would call it art. I would call it bad pots. Overfired and sloppy. But......... when I was chairman of the Standards Committee at the Michigan Guild years ago I sneaked some slides of pots by a "well regard" potter who had been in a number of ceramics magazines into the Standards review. They failed the review. Got one of the lowest total scores ever given. So, the question is: did the jurors just not know real art when they saw it or were the ceramics magazines being suckered by "new, different, haven't seen that before"?
>

Kathi

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

AKitchens on thu 22 may 03

As a student of clay for only five years, but a student of art for life, I sometimes struggle with understanding concepts of designs like these.
I have in the past, expected, what I (underline the I) believe to be, beautifully crafted pieces from masters. I am, after all, the product of a plumb and square carpenter.

Having spent the last five years trying to understand the broad and varied concepts of clay design, and spending time with Don Reitz recently, watching him work, I am again reminded of this musical analogy:

Music is your own experience,
your thoughts your wisdom.
If you don't live it,
It won't come out of your horn.
Charlie Parker


Nan Kitchens
Architectural Clayworks
Soggy but lush, rain forest green Tennessee

F.Chapman Baudelot on thu 22 may 03

--=======92B3395=======
Content-Type: text/plain; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-4A527AE6; charset=iso-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

To my untrained eyes, those mugs are extremely UGLY, poorly made and=20
glazed, disproportionate, useless, meaningless and irrelevant to=20
11/9. Surely there are better ways to commemorate that date than making=20
ugly mugs? To tell the truth, I did not much care for any of the other=20
pots bt Koie shown on the site and would prefer most Clayarters' mugs and=20
'guinomi' any day. It is not because I am told something is beautiful that=
=20
I can be brainwashed into appreciating what is to me pure ugliness. Those=20
mug handles in particular, look like drooping, twisted you-know-whats (I=20
dare not use crude language on the list, lol).

Is Robert Yellin on Clayart? I believe he was here some years back.

Fran=E7oise in Spain



http://indalopottery.tripod.com/fenix.html

--=======92B3395=======--

Karen Terpstra on thu 22 may 03

Dear Butch, Holly, and everyone,

I've read a few posts regarding your request for "clayarters critiques"
of Koie's work as pictured in the website mentioned below. I would like
to chime in with my opinion of his work. (And, to Holly who asked for a
lesson in Art Appreciation.)

First of all I'll share a bit of what I know about Koie's background in
clay. I think it will help clarify what Koie Ryoji and his work are all
about. In the 1960's Koie was influenced by two of Japan's leading
"anti-artists", Jiro Takamatsu and Natsuyuki Najanishi. They were
interested in the freedom of contemporary art as opposed to the
traditional. What was going on at the same time in New York with
Volkous and other abstract expressionists? The same thing. The tone of
these movements set the direction of his work, in which he has
questioned the nature of pottery and his own existence as an artist. His
works sometimes have explicit social messages referring to Hiroshima,
Nagasaki, and Chernobyl for example. And, now in an addition to his
work, he has responded in his personal way to Sept. 11.

Koie is one of the most prolific artists I know. With works ranging from
tableware-both abstract and functional, tilework, indoor and outdoor
installations, and too many singular forms to mention here. His firing
techniques are just as diverse.wood firing, gas, electric, and a
traditional Japanese method of high fire raku. He is also very prolific
in sculpture and drawing.

Koie is an ongoing researcher with clay and glaze materials and firing.
He continually works with no boundaries or restraints. He is considered
in the art-world a contemporary artist but he has paid his dues in
reverently studying the Japanese tradition of pottery. He is continually
reminded of his roots with a down-to-earth attitude that is reminiscent
in much of his work. This may be difficult to recognize by looking at
only one small aspect of his work such as what is on the website today.
One would be able to assess his work more accurately if one would look
at the breadth of the work over the past 40 years.

I have seen his work in shows and handled many of his pots; seen pots in
progress, even fired some of his pots. They are all different, made
with skill, creativity, and tactilness, all of his own voice. Koie is
used to criticism. He was considered a renegade from the sixties and
the criticism continued for several years. Koie became popular outside
of Japan in Europe and the US before gaining respect from the Japanese
critics for blatantly moving away from tradition. If you have been to
Japan or studied the culture, you can understand the extent of his
criticism. He didn't mind. He kept on working to follow his own path.

Koie was here at UW-L in 1998 for a 3-day workshop and brought 3 of his
apprentices with him. It was an incredible experience for the students
and me to watch someone work with the spontaneity and skill that he has
and all the while talking about his history and Japanese traditions. On
the 3rd day of the workshop the apprentices had a throwing contest
between them. They threw dozens of bowls off the hump, precisely the
same size and eggshell thin. Then turned them over and attached the
ring foots. It was an amazing show of the Japanese teaching tradition.
One of the apprentices had been working at Koie's only a few months and
had not yet moved beyond bowls.thousands of them. We've all heard Mel
talk about the advantages of this cultural type of technical training
for young apprentices. My students were blown away by the skill. And,
at the end, Koie explained. "Their creativity and their own voice will
come"; or something to that effect.

After having said all that, I looked at the pots again on the website
and can only guess at his firing methods.electric vs. gas on some of
them. Some of it I presume is experimentation with ash glazes. It is
very difficult to judge precisely from web pictures. I know they are not
molds. I'm pretty sure most of this work is new and fresh with new glaze
experiments, form etc. He is not concerned with tradition in a tight and
narrow sense. Wouldn't it be boring if we all had the same esthetic?

I was appalled this morning when I read some of the harsh opinions of
fellow clayarters. "Crap" and "poor workmanship", and other uniformed
negative comments.negative words. We've used these words on clayart in
context with movements and styles but someone's specific work? I
mentioned this to a friend of mine who used to be very active on
clayart. He was shocked and said, "Since when did they start trashing
people's work like this on clayart?" We wondered if this trashing would
be done in this manner to a fellow clayarter? Was it done because he is
not among us in the US and living in Japan? Yet we have clayarters in
Japan. Is it jealousy because he can get $275 for a coffee mug and a
contemporary style at that? I'm assuming Butch's original question was
asking for informed opinions and constructive criticism.

My friend and I started talking about the values and differences of
constructive criticism, uniformed and negative opinion, blatant
trashing. This is an important subject matter to me since I also teach
Art Appreciation to 120 non-art majors. At the first of the semester it
is evident that the majority of them do not understand modern, abstract,
or contemporary art. They simply have not been exposed to much of it
here in the upper Midwest. I try to teach them how to understand some of
it, hopefully appreciate some of it, and judge/critique it fairly both
subjectively and objectively. They also understand that they don't have
to personally like it or buy it for their living rooms. They do end up
leaving the class with a more thorough understanding about all art and
the variety of reasons why artists make art. What has happened here on
clayart?

Sincerely,
Karen Terpstra
La Crosse, WI


From: "Butch Welch"
>
> > Is this art? Is it overfired glaze? I would like to hear what
> > clayarters critique of this work is. The link was posted for review,

> > so I accept
that
> > as being open for review.
> >

http://www.trocadero.com/japanesepottery/items/144071/en1store.html
> >
> > regards, Butch
> >
>

Mert & Holly Kilpatrick on thu 22 may 03

Karen,
I have enjoyed reading all the responses about Koie Ryoji, but yours was
definitely the most helpful, embedding these few isolated mugs firmly into
the context of his wide career, which in itself is embedded into the
developments of Japanese ceramics over the last 50 years. My thought after
reading your writeup was that it is pointless, or meaningless, to just look
at those mugs in a vacuum, out of context, in and of themselves.

On the other hand, is there not an approach to pottery, which is to view a
piece as if it were alone in the midst of an empty space, such as a desert
or a vast open timeless space, just existing and presenting itself,
unencumbered, without the viewer knowing who made it, when, where? Or would
you say that that is impossible, or not a valid approach?

Holly
East Bangor, PA

Susan Maguire on thu 22 may 03

Dear Karen........ In reply to your wonderful post I must say, we are ALL=20
learning a lot. Be patient with us.

Susan Maguire
Fort Lauderdale


class with a more thorough understanding about all art and
the variety of reasons why artists make art.=A0 What has happened here on
clayart?

Sincerely,
Karen Terpstra
La Crosse, WI

=?iso-8859-1?q?Katie=20Ellis?= on thu 22 may 03

$275 a pop? Gee, maybe I should start selling my
stuff!! I'd only have to sell 37 mugs to pay for
books/tuition/dorm/food for my entire first year at
BYU! Gee, maybe I'll move to Japan and change my name
to Koie Ryoji...guess I just don't understand his
work/style enough...

~Katie
*I just have to add on that I was able to visit my
very first pottery on Tuesday...talk about incredible!
I actually got teary when our class walked in the
door! It was so beautiful! We were able to glaze a
bunch of stuff to be fired in the gas kiln...my first
experience with cone 10 reduction. It was so amazing
to be there..it felt like I'd known that shop and
those glazes for my entire life. So often now I feel
that my heart is ready but my head and hands aren't...




_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Información de Estados Unidos y América Latina, en Yahoo! Noticias.
Visítanos en http://noticias.espanol.yahoo.com

Snail Scott on fri 23 may 03

>karen terpstra wrote:
>Sometimes when looking at art, especially post modern or abstract, etc.,
>it is easier to make valid statements and judgments about the work when
>you know more about the artist and the rest of his work.

At 12:25 PM 5/23/03 -0700, Mercy Lang wrote:
>I disagree with you. I do not need to know how famous or great he has
been to have an opinion on the present. Every >piece should be able to
stand on it's own regardless how great he's been in the past.


I think what Karen is saying, is not that we must regard
every product of a known artist as above criticism, but
that we can learn something about the artist's newer work
by looking at their older work. Especially when someone is
developing an extended 'visual metaphor' or trying various
approaches to expressing similar ideas, we can better judge
the artist's intent, and the success of the effort, by
seeing its predecessors.

It's a lovely idea that any work of art should be entirely
freestanding, and be understood in its own self without
the aid of gallery tags, critic's input, or even the artist's
own history. However, nothing is without context. Nothing.
Some context is so pervasive that we may not be aware that
it colors our judgement, like the cultural milieu we grew
up in or the conventions of a well-known artform.

Other contexts that can help us understand a work of art
include the culture in which it was made. Can we really
understand a medieval altarpiece without knowing at least
a little about Catholicism? Without that, it's just pretty,
and a little obscure. The life story of the artist can also
figure into the understanding of a work - doesn't Chagall's
painting make more sense knowing that he was an emigre, and
grew up in a rural Jewish village? In the 1940's, John
Heartfield painted an abstract picture composed entirely of
German military decorations and insignia. Dosn't it change
the meaning of it to know that it was painted as a secret
memorial to his lover, a Luftwaffe officer killed in the war?
The history of a period matters, too. Picasso's 'Guernica' is
eyecatching for its evident pathos as well as its sheer scale,
but knowing that it's one person's response to an actual,
brutal event surely affects our perception of it. The practice
of art during a period matters as well. Was the artist
responding to a dialogue or an idea prevalent in their era, or
trying something new?Pollock's work seems pretty pointless
unless we consider the ideas being pushed about by the other
Abstract Expressionists of his era - ideas about circumventing
the censorship of the conscious mind, by allowing broad physical
activity to guide the image, or by distancing the artist's hand
from control ofthe painting's surface to allow a role for chance
and the subliminal.

Knowing the past work of a given artist can give us yet
another source of information when considering the success
of a given work of art. Not a 'free pass' based on prior
success, but simply another angle from which to observe,
and maybe when combined with the other context-information
we bring along, gives us a clearer view altogether. The
information we gain may not make the object a better work
of art - it may even make it seem the less. It may even be
truly irrelevant, but we can scarcely know that without
some consideration. Often, a work must stand alone, without
any information at all. When this is the case, it puts a
great deal of pressure on that piece, to tell its whole
story itself. Many works can do this, and surely it's an
admirable mark of success to do so, but how often are we left
the poorer for it, unaware, without the depth of a broad,
engaging context.

-Snail

claybair on fri 23 may 03

I have to tell you that I have a nearly 50 year art background.
However, when I make a piece of crap it is just that and I admit it.
I think most potters do the same.... just look at their shard pile!

Now another issue arises.....
When I made what I called teabowls I got tons of "crap" from people
saying that I could not do so because I am not from the culture that
traditionally produces them.

Seems to me the shoe is on the other foot here!

Gayle Bair - stirring the hornets nest again
Bainbridge Island, WA
http://claybair.com

-----Original Message-----
From:Mert & Holly Kilpatrick

Karen,
I have enjoyed reading all the responses about Koie Ryoji, but yours was
definitely the most helpful, embedding these few isolated mugs firmly into
the context of his wide career, which in itself is embedded into the
developments of Japanese ceramics over the last 50 years. My thought after
reading your writeup was that it is pointless, or meaningless, to just look
at those mugs in a vacuum, out of context, in and of themselves.

On the other hand, is there not an approach to pottery, which is to view a
piece as if it were alone in the midst of an empty space, such as a desert
or a vast open timeless space, just existing and presenting itself,
unencumbered, without the viewer knowing who made it, when, where? Or would
you say that that is impossible, or not a valid approach?

Holly
East Bangor, PA

mercy lang on fri 23 may 03

I have to first say that I'm a very picky and perfectionist so my observations are very one sided. I'm telling you that was one BAD! firing. Forget political correctness and the thought he put into it. Thought of process is just one of the many things we do before we start anything. I agree I'm not seeing in person but it looks like some test that went wrong and he forgot to throw it away. About price well he can ask for whatever he wants- that doesn't mean he going to get it. When I sell my pieces which are pricey because of the lusters and so forth, my customers check everything as well they should. People don't go throwing there money out the window. Furthermore I always sign my pieces at the end and not the beginning. Why? Because I will only sign what I can be proud of. I know about rustic and modernism i do both but with aesthetics and alot of hard work that shows. I think it was a bad decision on his part to put that out. It will haunt him even if he does great things in the future and if he had people collecting his pieces,he's bound to lose them. Sometimes we do not realize that the time we take on our work does show through. You tell your kids to clean their ro

om. When you check you can tell if they went in five minutes before or if there was effort involved. I'm not talking pretty or ugly rather worked with effort or not. Now putting a symbol or signature is not enough. Just one person's opinion- Mercy

Snail Scott wrote:At 09:15 AM 5/22/03 -0500, you wrote:
>Jeese, Snail,
>Do you want a formalistic critique breaking each element down, tying and
>weighing against both contemporary and historic Japanese as well as their
>avant garde movments in clay contrasted to the Westerner European clay
>tradition and all is variances?...
>I don't need hours or even minutes to recognize a good piece of clay or to
>provide a boring evaluation like in graduate school...


Heck, no! I'm not demanding anything but a good look
and a considered response, and even that only if you
feel like it. What bothered me was the number of
respondents that apparently (for instance) didn't
even notice the 'Sept 11' or wonder "Why am I being
shown the bottoms of untrimmed mugs?" Their loss, I
figure. But wouldn't we all like to live in a world
where the small decisions we make to create our work
are noticed by our viewers? The proportion of one
part to another, the contour, the color, the texture,
and even (where present) the content.

Just doing my rabble-rousing bit to create a world
of thoughtful, considered observers.


-Snail

______________________________________________________________________________
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.


Mercy Lang
Visit www.mercylang.com for fine art and sculpture. Jewelry for your Home!

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.

karen terpstra on fri 23 may 03

Hi Holly,
Yes! Absolutely there is "an approach to pottery, which is to view a
piece as if it were alone in the midst of an empty space." Many
potters, ceramic artists do just that. And, many on the list I might
add. How many of us have been stopped dead in our tracks by one
particular piece in a group show or gallery that just blows us away? It
happens all the time.

In my opinion, and knowing a bit about Koie, he doesn't worry about that
with all of his work. Neither is it always his intention unless he is
doing an installation. By all means that must stand on its own. Much
of his other work does stand alone. I don't think he worries about all
of it. His mugs for example work with the rest of the genre of his
forms.

Sometimes when looking at art, especially post modern or abstract, etc.,
it is easier to make valid statements and judgments about the work when
you know more about the artist and the rest of his work. This doesn't
mean that you have to like it. You might not. We all have our
differences of opinion and our own preferences of beauty and esthetics.
I'm not trying to make everyone on this list like Koie's work. Far from
it. I have seen much of his work and I have different personal opinions
on a lot of it.

I'm just concerned with the way he's been trashed. He is a friend of
mine. I would be equally offended if people said the same things about
friends of mine that I have on this list. There are better ways to
express opinions and critique work than blatant trashing.

The other concern I have is that I'm sure new people who are not in a
school situation and would like their work critiqued are not going to
publicly ask that it be done by this list. A few daring ones have asked
for crits on clayart. How many posts will we miss because of the way
Koie's work was trashed? I'm receiving lots of private email from my
post yesterday that say they are afraid to respond to the list because
of what's been going on of late.

For example here is a partial quote from one of the emails:
"I am afraid to write this on the list. If you write something that they
do
not like they really get on your case and I do
not have the time or patience
for it.."

Sincerely,
Karen Terpstra
La Crosse, WI


Holly wrote:
On the other hand, is there not an approach to pottery, which is to view
a
piece as if it were alone in the midst of an empty space, such as a
desert
or a vast open timeless space, just existing and presenting itself,
unencumbered, without the viewer knowing who made it, when, where? Or
would
you say that that is impossible, or not a valid approach?

Holly
East Bangor, PA

Cindi Anderson on fri 23 may 03

Yes, the critisim wasn't kind. But as someone pointed out, nobody would
ever critisize a ClayArter like this, and probably not even any beginning /
intermediate potter. At some point do artists become "public domain" and
subject to higher levels of analysis? Like saying that some popular actor
really doesn't know how to act. We do this all the time in life and people
don't take offense.

Anyway, whether it is "right" or not, I honestly don't know. I think
probably people went too far. But I can say that the critisism is helpful
to people like me who are trying to learn how to separate good from bad.
There were specifics in the critisisms that I could learn from. At NCECA I
happened to be on a bus tour with someone you all know. Several times I
pointed at something that was very expensive and I didn't understand why.
To me the pieces looked terrible, and I didn't know if my eye was untrained.
So I asked this person, and each time his answer was something along the
lines of "I have no idea why it's expensive, I think it is ugly too." That
gave me a lot of confidence to trust my own opinions.

When I started acting school, I couldn't tell a good actor from a bad one.
It was in discussing the performances that I learned to recognize the
difference. The same is true of pottery. I thought the discussion of the
current works in CM that we were doing last year was great, but it petered
out.

Cindi
Fremont, CA

mercy lang on fri 23 may 03

karen terpstra wrote:
Sometimes when looking at art, especially post modern or abstract, etc.,
it is easier to make valid statements and judgments about the work when
you know more about the artist and the rest of his work.

I disagree with you. I do not need to know how famous or great he has been to have an opinion on the present. Every piece should be able to stand on it's own regardless how great he's been in the past.


I'm just concerned with the way he's been trashed. He is a friend of
mine. I would be equally offended if people said the same things about
friends of mine that I have on this list. There are better ways to
express opinions and critique work than blatant trashing.


Not true. He has not been trashed. His work was shown and we were asked what we thought. Nothing personal at all. However, saying that something looks awful etc. is not blatant trashing, just the truth of those that said it.


The other concern I have is that I'm sure new people who are not in a
school situation and would like their work critiqued are not going to
publicly ask that it be done by this list. A few daring ones have asked
for crits on clayart. How many posts will we miss because of the way
Koie's work was trashed? I'm receiving lots of private email from my
post yesterday that say they are afraid to respond to the list because
of what's been going on of late.


When you start down this path and ask for an opinion- especially from clayarters that have been doing their work for many years I would expect the truth and ideas to improve if that were the case. Mercy




Mercy Lang
Visit www.mercylang.com for fine art and sculpture. Jewelry for your Home!

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.

Mary O'Connell on sat 24 may 03

Dear Fellow Clayarter's Replying to this subject line:

Is there any way for Mr. Ryoji to weigh in on his mugs responding to the
overall critique generated by the original post by, I think, Karen? Maybe
we could then find out why he used a mug (very western symbol) and why he
did not use the elements of this form in a more abstract way.
Deconstructing and reconstructing to make a metaphor is a very tricky
business especially with a form as widely referenced as a mug. I think he
could take some of the confusion away from his conceptual statement. I'm
not sure it is real clear.

Mary O.
----- Original Message -----
From: Snail Scott
To:
Sent: Saturday, May 24, 2003 12:31 AM
Subject: Re: Koie Ryoji On-line Exhibition


> >karen terpstra wrote:
> >Sometimes when looking at art, especially post modern or abstract, etc.,
> >it is easier to make valid statements and judgments about the work when
> >you know more about the artist and the rest of his work.
>
> At 12:25 PM 5/23/03 -0700, Mercy Lang wrote:
> >I disagree with you. I do not need to know how famous or great he has
> been to have an opinion on the present. Every >piece should be able to
> stand on it's own regardless how great he's been in the past.
>
>
> I think what Karen is saying, is not that we must regard
> every product of a known artist as above criticism, but
> that we can learn something about the artist's newer work
> by looking at their older work. Especially when someone is
> developing an extended 'visual metaphor' or trying various
> approaches to expressing similar ideas, we can better judge
> the artist's intent, and the success of the effort, by
> seeing its predecessors.
>
> It's a lovely idea that any work of art should be entirely
> freestanding, and be understood in its own self without
> the aid of gallery tags, critic's input, or even the artist's
> own history. However, nothing is without context. Nothing.
> Some context is so pervasive that we may not be aware that
> it colors our judgement, like the cultural milieu we grew
> up in or the conventions of a well-known artform.
>
> Other contexts that can help us understand a work of art
> include the culture in which it was made. Can we really
> understand a medieval altarpiece without knowing at least
> a little about Catholicism? Without that, it's just pretty,
> and a little obscure. The life story of the artist can also
> figure into the understanding of a work - doesn't Chagall's
> painting make more sense knowing that he was an emigre, and
> grew up in a rural Jewish village? In the 1940's, John
> Heartfield painted an abstract picture composed entirely of
> German military decorations and insignia. Dosn't it change
> the meaning of it to know that it was painted as a secret
> memorial to his lover, a Luftwaffe officer killed in the war?
> The history of a period matters, too. Picasso's 'Guernica' is
> eyecatching for its evident pathos as well as its sheer scale,
> but knowing that it's one person's response to an actual,
> brutal event surely affects our perception of it. The practice
> of art during a period matters as well. Was the artist
> responding to a dialogue or an idea prevalent in their era, or
> trying something new?Pollock's work seems pretty pointless
> unless we consider the ideas being pushed about by the other
> Abstract Expressionists of his era - ideas about circumventing
> the censorship of the conscious mind, by allowing broad physical
> activity to guide the image, or by distancing the artist's hand
> from control ofthe painting's surface to allow a role for chance
> and the subliminal.
>
> Knowing the past work of a given artist can give us yet
> another source of information when considering the success
> of a given work of art. Not a 'free pass' based on prior
> success, but simply another angle from which to observe,
> and maybe when combined with the other context-information
> we bring along, gives us a clearer view altogether. The
> information we gain may not make the object a better work
> of art - it may even make it seem the less. It may even be
> truly irrelevant, but we can scarcely know that without
> some consideration. Often, a work must stand alone, without
> any information at all. When this is the case, it puts a
> great deal of pressure on that piece, to tell its whole
> story itself. Many works can do this, and surely it's an
> admirable mark of success to do so, but how often are we left
> the poorer for it, unaware, without the depth of a broad,
> engaging context.
>
> -Snail
>
>
____________________________________________________________________________
__
> 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.
>

Tony Olsen on sat 24 may 03

I did notice the sep 11 reference on the bottoms. Thought also that =
these were not functional mugs Re: crazing, bottoms that would scratch =
surfaces, etc. Then thought that if this is a tribute to, commemoration =
of, or remembrance of "9-11", it is only partly done. Two of the mugs =
should have been broken, shards piled up on a slab and refired so the =
glaze fuses the pieces together. The sep 11 could still show. Just =
like everyone else, got my own opinion. It's not within my budget to =
pay 275$ for any mug, so the price of these became irrelevant when I saw =
it was above about 25$.
Tony Olsen (Galveston)
http://tonyolsen.com/up/

Tony Ferguson on sat 24 may 03

If I need to know an artist's background, bio, influences, etc, to
understand his or her work, then the work has failed in my opinion with the
exception of that artist's friends and collectors. Flip side is, if the
artist is doing the work for his or herself, then it doen'st matter if other
people get it at all.

If the artist needs to explain the work so we "get it," the artist attempt
at making a statement has failed as well.

If a work is dependant on an artists career and what they have done in the
past to understand it, it is also a failure.

I believe, as others, a good work will stand the test of time and any
criticism--I am reminded of the Greeks, the Etruscan earthenware casket
sculptures, the Chinese porcelains, the African (and many other cultures
too) water jars, kimchi jars of Korea, etc, etc.

Koie's work, however, could be the kind of work that is created to stimulate
discussion in this particular case and context--and if this was his
intention, then he was sucessfull. In fact, we are all thinking about these
issues as they relate to his work, but more importantly, now, how they
relate to our own work--and this is very sucessfull.

If the work in clay is purely functional, then it should function, and
anyone will get it and use it and use it.

A thousand years from now they are not going to know who any of us are--so
our work will have to tell the story--metaphorcially or functionally--with
all the parts of the composition of the piece working together, like a song
or a dance.

Thank you.

Tony Ferguson
On Lake Superior, where the sky meets the Lake

Stoneware, Porcelain, Raku and more
by Coleman, Ferguson, Winchester...
www.aquariusartgallery.com
218-727-6339
315 N. Lake Ave
Apt 312
Duluth, MN 55806


----- Original Message -----
From: "Mary O'Connell"
To:
Sent: Saturday, May 24, 2003 7:00 AM
Subject: Re: Koie Ryoji On-line Exhibition


> Dear Fellow Clayarter's Replying to this subject line:
>
> Is there any way for Mr. Ryoji to weigh in on his mugs responding to the
> overall critique generated by the original post by, I think, Karen? Maybe
> we could then find out why he used a mug (very western symbol) and why he
> did not use the elements of this form in a more abstract way.
> Deconstructing and reconstructing to make a metaphor is a very tricky
> business especially with a form as widely referenced as a mug. I think he
> could take some of the confusion away from his conceptual statement. I'm
> not sure it is real clear.
>
> Mary O.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Snail Scott
> To:
> Sent: Saturday, May 24, 2003 12:31 AM
> Subject: Re: Koie Ryoji On-line Exhibition
>
>
> > >karen terpstra wrote:
> > >Sometimes when looking at art, especially post modern or abstract,
etc.,
> > >it is easier to make valid statements and judgments about the work when
> > >you know more about the artist and the rest of his work.
> >
> > At 12:25 PM 5/23/03 -0700, Mercy Lang wrote:
> > >I disagree with you. I do not need to know how famous or great he has
> > been to have an opinion on the present. Every >piece should be able to
> > stand on it's own regardless how great he's been in the past.
> >
> >
> > I think what Karen is saying, is not that we must regard
> > every product of a known artist as above criticism, but
> > that we can learn something about the artist's newer work
> > by looking at their older work. Especially when someone is
> > developing an extended 'visual metaphor' or trying various
> > approaches to expressing similar ideas, we can better judge
> > the artist's intent, and the success of the effort, by
> > seeing its predecessors.
> >
> > It's a lovely idea that any work of art should be entirely
> > freestanding, and be understood in its own self without
> > the aid of gallery tags, critic's input, or even the artist's
> > own history. However, nothing is without context. Nothing.
> > Some context is so pervasive that we may not be aware that
> > it colors our judgement, like the cultural milieu we grew
> > up in or the conventions of a well-known artform.
> >
> > Other contexts that can help us understand a work of art
> > include the culture in which it was made. Can we really
> > understand a medieval altarpiece without knowing at least
> > a little about Catholicism? Without that, it's just pretty,
> > and a little obscure. The life story of the artist can also
> > figure into the understanding of a work - doesn't Chagall's
> > painting make more sense knowing that he was an emigre, and
> > grew up in a rural Jewish village? In the 1940's, John
> > Heartfield painted an abstract picture composed entirely of
> > German military decorations and insignia. Dosn't it change
> > the meaning of it to know that it was painted as a secret
> > memorial to his lover, a Luftwaffe officer killed in the war?
> > The history of a period matters, too. Picasso's 'Guernica' is
> > eyecatching for its evident pathos as well as its sheer scale,
> > but knowing that it's one person's response to an actual,
> > brutal event surely affects our perception of it. The practice
> > of art during a period matters as well. Was the artist
> > responding to a dialogue or an idea prevalent in their era, or
> > trying something new?Pollock's work seems pretty pointless
> > unless we consider the ideas being pushed about by the other
> > Abstract Expressionists of his era - ideas about circumventing
> > the censorship of the conscious mind, by allowing broad physical
> > activity to guide the image, or by distancing the artist's hand
> > from control ofthe painting's surface to allow a role for chance
> > and the subliminal.
> >
> > Knowing the past work of a given artist can give us yet
> > another source of information when considering the success
> > of a given work of art. Not a 'free pass' based on prior
> > success, but simply another angle from which to observe,
> > and maybe when combined with the other context-information
> > we bring along, gives us a clearer view altogether. The
> > information we gain may not make the object a better work
> > of art - it may even make it seem the less. It may even be
> > truly irrelevant, but we can scarcely know that without
> > some consideration. Often, a work must stand alone, without
> > any information at all. When this is the case, it puts a
> > great deal of pressure on that piece, to tell its whole
> > story itself. Many works can do this, and surely it's an
> > admirable mark of success to do so, but how often are we left
> > the poorer for it, unaware, without the depth of a broad,
> > engaging context.
> >
> > -Snail
> >
> >
>
____________________________________________________________________________
> __
> > 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.
>

Tony Ferguson on sun 25 may 03

Rick,

I agree with you. There is a lot "stuff" in magazines. Until people start
actually being honest with each other and with themselves, the bar may not
go up very much. I just talked to a buddie of mine telling me of the
"Malcolm Davis" potter who makes his and other CM people's work and goes to
shows with this "copy" work. People who are just looking for the formula to
another's sucess. We just shake our head as we feel people should try to
push "their" work experimenting, trying new things along the lines of their
own vision. Sometimes because of our subjectivity we are blind to our own
crap--but, it may be a necessary step in our evolution to something
exemplary down the road--the "crap" may truly be a piece of the puzzle of
development. I have told my students "I don't care if your making crap or
"good" work as long as you keep making it. Eventually you will know what
you like, what is good and what is poorly executed."


Thank you.

Tony Ferguson
On Lake Superior, where the sky meets the Lake

Stoneware, Porcelain, Raku and more
by Coleman, Ferguson, Winchester...
www.aquariusartgallery.com
218-727-6339
315 N. Lake Ave
Apt 312
Duluth, MN 55806

----- Original Message -----
From: "Rick"
To:
Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2003 6:26 AM
Subject: Re: Koie Ryoji On-line Exhibition


> I am absolutely flabbergasted. I don't believe I have ever read such
> an outpouring of uninformed nonsense. Putting the shoe on the other
> foot, have you looked at some of the stuff in pottery magazines that is
> touted as -- well, for lack of a better word -- pottery? Yet, nary a
> peep from anyone --- good, bad, or indifferent. As Snail says, there
> seems to be a lack of ability to look at things on different planes.
>
> Rick
> On 2003.May.22, at 02:52 PM, Snail Scott wrote:
>
> > At 04:47 PM 5/21/03 -0500, you wrote:
> >> Its body actually looks molded because of the
> >> bottom text riding on the surface. I don't see the point if it is
> >> slipcasted other than if he felt he couldn't get the raised surface
> >> any
> >> other way...
> >
> >
> > (I think that they were individually thrown, but
> > on a plaster bat with the words incised into the
> > bat's surface in reverse.)
> >
> >
> > I don't mind that many people on this list hate
> > these mugs; I'm not wild about them, either.
> > What bothers me is the total lack of thought and
> > consideration that has gone into many of the
> > responses I've read. Do you always evaluate what
> > you see so briefly and superficially? (Lumpy
> > handle or untrimmed bottom = therefore crap!)
> > No wonder so many potters seem confused by
> > contemporary art...it might take them more than
> > an instant to THINK about the IDEAS involved!
> >
> > I don't believe that these mugs are the epitome
> > of pottery as fine art. But, they did involve
> > at least some thought on the part of the artist,
> > to take 'coffee mug' beyond its basic attributes
> > and into another realm, where more than one set
> > of criteria might be brought to bear toward its
> > evaluation.
> >
> > I don't demand that every work of contemporary
> > art be held up as a work of genius - after all,
> > most of it's not, and a lot of it is truly rotten.
> > But that's why it's needful to actually LOOK and
> > THINK about what's being presented. To paraphrase
> > Theodore Sturgeon, 90% of contemporary art is
> > crap, but so is 90% of everything else. How can
> > you know the difference if you don't take time to
> > critically evaluate what you see? You don't have
> > to 'get it right', you don't have to like it, you
> > don't have to approve of its existence or even
> > understand it, but please, show me that you based
> > your opinion on some minimum amount of thought!
> >
> > -Snail
> >
> > _______________________________________________________________________
> > _______
> > 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.
>

Butch Welch on mon 26 may 03

I have enjoyed the post very much, and have been inspired my some of them.

The reason I ask about the work of Koie Ryoj was because it was like
anti-art, which is a word, I believe was used to describe it. I have a cable
connection, and have literally looked at 100's of pieces of pottery on line
from all parts of the world. When I saw his work, I was astonished that it
was being produced for sale at any price. The price of any work is relative
to supply and demand and the market it is offered in. It was not the price,
it was the fact that it looks like what I would call a mistake, both in the
throwing and the glazing. I was not just looking at the mugs, as some people
have referenced and took apart in great detail but if you look at his other
pieces, you see the same direction of work. Some one stated his appreciates
were excellent throws, which would lead one to believe that his work is not
based on lack of skill. Having grown up in the fifty's and sixty's, I would
call his work, anti-establishment.

I am not an art major. I do not have an artistic background either formal or
informal. I would classify myself in the ability range of an intermediate
level potter. I have higher than average ability in abstract reasoning. I am
a customer of the art world. I have traveled internationally, but not in
Asia. I have seen the actual painting of The Last Supper, I have seen the
last sculpture that Michelangelo was working on. I have been to the great
museums of London. No where in my travel have I never seen displayed work
that resembles Koie Ryoj. If the intend was to be non conformist, to design
with out limits for those gone before me, to shock the viewer, he is a
success. They are many other pieces that are posted on the same site, by
other artist, that I very much admired, would like the ability to reproduce,
and to also own.

I took the challenge and read the interview with Koie Ryoj. An trying to be
open minded about it two thinks stood out to me.
http://www.trocadero.com/japanesepottery/items/144071/en1store.html That
is the link I posted. It is not mugs. Other item in the online store can be
seen by clicking the catalogue link in the upper right hand corner. One
title for his work is The Final Koie Upload for Awhile.......I can not post
the content of the statement because of the copywriter, but one note by a
visitor,( Item one) "The show is an immediately unique balance of keenly
developed and energized technique with intentionally abandoned artistic
creativity. That was a compliment! Based on the additional information in
the note. It does not say why it is his last work for a while. He is Sixty
five years old, but I would not consider that old for his culture. But he
has lived a hard life, based on his comments about his drinking habits.
Item two is the interview with Koie Ryoj by
http://www.e-yakimono.net/html/koie-ryoji-interview.html "His newly built
anagama (single-chamber kiln) in his hometown of Okujo Amagasa (in Tokoname,
Aichi), made the news because of its size, 20 meters in length. It's called
the Muteppo-gama, or Temerity Kiln. It was intentionally made to fire
ceramics uneven. That is very Koie-ish, what one might expect from this
artist." That is from the interview, not my words.
His art is the repeat of intentional failure, or mistakes in my eyes. I
agree it is art, but not something I would purchase at any price.
I have not made a personal attack on Koie Ryoj. But I do not see his art as
pleasing to the eye, or give me pause to search any deeper as to the meaning
of it.
That is my opinion. I respect the opinion of those who have respectfully
disagreed and agreed. I have learned more by asking the question than by the
failure to asking.
Regards, Butch bwelch1@charter.net
"Don't shot the messenger just because you do not like the message"

Linda Christen on tue 27 may 03

Butch,

Despite the current unpleasantness I thank you for introducing me to a
new artist. I just went to the page with his interview and found it
fascinating.

Koie Ryoji is both an interesting person and artist. I find his pieces
thought provoking. Many are beautiful in a graceful off balance sort of
way. Particularly the platter exhibited with the towers, it has the
pressed in shell, creating the red spot, the line of white to grey
parallels the line of the towers near it. The arrangement creates a
pensive mood.

I agree with his statement that it is necessary to take time to process
an event before creating art about it. This is true of many things,
until your emotions and thoughts on a subject have had time to mature,
you can not create a full artistic statment.

I, too, am not a trained artist. Weighing the opinions, shared
knowledge and gut feelings of others on clayart helps me to not only
broaden my horizons but also helps me to form my opinions on the subject
matter.

Thank you for introducing this subject line to the list! I certainly
hope that those willing to share their expertise continue to do so. I
learn so much from this list.

Sincerely,
Linda Christen in still cold and raining Massachusetts, hearing "Taps"
at yesterday's rainy Memorial Day service brought tears. I need to get
my fathers urn made so that we can properly bury him. I am eager to put
plantings around his grave. Yet, as Koie Ryoji says, I have to feel my
emotions and allow them to mature within me if I am to do my father
justice in the making of his urn. Today is a good day to spend at my
wheel...

-----------------------------------------------------------------





"I have not made a personal attack on Koie Ryoj. But I do not see his
art as
pleasing to the eye, or give me pause to search any deeper as to the
meaning
of it.
That is my opinion. I respect the opinion of those who have respectfully
disagreed and agreed. I have learned more by asking the question than by
the
failure to asking."
Regards, Butch bwelch1@charter.net
"Don't shot the messenger just because you do not like the message"

Gerald O'Sullivan on tue 27 may 03

Like probably most of us, I looked at Koie's mugs and thought "what ugly
handles", but after I followed up the other web-pages, I saw that he is not
a potter making wares for use. He uses clay to make a point, in the same way
that Peter Voulkos made ceramic works to challenge our perceptions about
clay and sculpture.

So I looked at the mugs again - now they amuse and intrigue me. Their
oddness makes me think about proportion and utility, and what it is that
makes a mug "beautiful" or not.

And Koie has achieved his goal - he has challenged me and made me sit up and
think twice. And that is where art diverges from craft. A beautifully
crafted work with solid workmanship, proportions, utility, and texture is
not necessarily a work of art. Good art is not about being well-made - art
makes you think, or at least it should, if it is not to be self-serving.

So that is the problem - we said "ugly" because we were using the wrong
framework to understand and judge. We did not know the context. Once I knew
something about him, I understood the mugs better. And I understand the
price tag too. These are not mugs to drink tea from. They are mugs which
question "mugness", which is different altogether.

So if I dug up one of these mugs in a thousand years hence, knowing nothing
about the context, I would say - What an ugly handle. But if I knew who Koie
was and what he was trying to do, I would say - Wow, a mug by Koie, the
Japanese artist who got Clayart going!

Gerald

Paul Herman on tue 27 may 03

Hello All,

Well, this subject sure lit off a storm of mail, and like his mug or
not, we all learned a bit about the guy. Butch, thanks for starting it.
You never can tell how far these things will go or where.

The interview cited below is really good. One of my favorite
question/responses from the interview:

Y: I expected that you would go with brown works.

Koie: I knew it. It is my job to betray people's expectations. Almost
all my clients look forward to seeing "How is he going to betray us this
time." When one thinks, "Koie must go like this," they find totally
different things.

This made me howl, and I thought of all the passions unleashed in Koie's
name on Clayart. If you have time, it's a fun read. To me, he comes
across as intelligent, humorous, and very much an Artist. I like his
work.

best wishes,

Paul Herman
Great Basin Pottery
423-725 Scott Road
Doyle, California 96109 US
potter@psln.com

----------
>From: Butch Welch


> Item two is the interview with Koie Ryoj by
> http://www.e-yakimono.net/html/koie-ryoji-interview.html

Joe Coniglio on tue 27 may 03

I made sure I read all I could before I responded.

It's not whether I like the individuals work or not.
It's not whether said individual deforested a small area and burned enough
wood for days and days and days to heat a village so that the end result
would look like meadow wafers.

It's not whether the stuff is pretty or functional or executed well.

The harsh reality, just like the sports team that pays big money for a player
much to the amazement of others...

***There are market forces at work here folks. And the key word here is
free.***

Free to charge what you want as an artist.
...and the buyer who is...
Free to buy or not buy a piece of work.

It's obvious there are enough buyers who believe in Koie Ryoji work.
It means nothing that I am not one of them.

You have to do what's right for you (as a seller and a buyer)
Just like Koie Ryoji believes to be true.

Most of us will cast our vote by not going to the register.
This is our choice. We are free not to buy.

I see this problem in play in the American Southwest.
It's not whether I like the guys/gals work or not.
The simple coiled black on black pot here costs $2500 or $25,000 because of
lineage. In this case, lineage, and traditional methods are market factors.
But year after year collectors will buy much the pottery and other art at
Indian Market in Santa Fe this August---just because of these market factors.

You know if you are a full time potter, one of your biggest challenges is the
market place. Getting your work to market is a huge challenge and it can be
very difficult.

No one said it was going to be fair?

"What do you think? Money is Heaven Sent?" --John Lennon.

Please continue to experiment and market what works for you.

Bobbruch1@AOL.COM on wed 28 may 03

Last year, I was visiting a gallery where I sometimes show work, and a person
I know asked me to explain the then present exhibit, work by a Japanese
woodfire artist. This person buys a lot of art and has wide ranging tastes, but he
just didn't understand this particular work. I had met the artist several
times and been to a lecture where he showed a 45 minute video, so I was able to
explain the methodology, difficultly, firing process, and some of the cultural
influences. It must have done some good, as my friend eventually became
really interested in this artist's work, and I believe bought some pieces.

That is why I think that it would be helpful to see a body of Koie's work IN
PERSON. Also, an explanation by someone who is knowledgeable on the subject
would be helpful. As for pricing, Japanese potters tend sell at higher levels
than we can comprehend in the US. One would also need to know where he stood
in the Japanese ceramics world, and what sort of lineage he comes from. These
things have an importance that is not easily translated on this side of the
Pacific.

Bob Bruch