mel jacobson on sun 20 mar 05
please re/read my post.
i have quoted about six different people
in my post.
my reaction was the word `vanilla`.
there was very little time given to the
craft of ceramics at nceca.
a great deal time was devoted to the words of
ceramic art.
many on this list have sent in proposals...many denied.
if it has to do with tools, kilns, skill or craft the chances
of being `proactive` are very small.
that is what a group of very skilled potters have said to me.
i passed that on. the nceca people are making choices, that
is their right and their decision. it is a group of folks that make
up college teaching of ceramics in america. tom turner addressed
that issue again to me in a private email an hour ago. he has strong
opinions, i agree with him on many issues. that too is my right.
i paid my fee, i belong. all the clayarters that paid their fee have
the right to express their opinions. it is not b.s.
the potters council will continue to have workshops that
deal with skill, tools, the craft and the working artist/potter.
a new one is in the works for fall. very exciting. more will follow.
our need is skill, information, and understanding of our tools. the
college teacher of clay has other issues and pressures. that is the
way it is. we will not be able to change that.
here is my metaphor:
an untrained grad student fired a brand new kiln at a major
university. he fired it with the damper over ride turned off. he over
reduced the kiln with unburned
gas building up in the kiln. the heat shot straight down to the concrete
floor. the concrete blew up. the car/ the kiln and a fire ball exploded.
no one was hurt.
the faculty would not let the builder build the kiln they way he wanted.
(a signed statement of no responsibility from the builder saved his ass.)
they had a better idea. poor choice. why is an untrained grad student
firing a kiln/alone, without any form of supervision or training? the
kiln was full,
i am sure with 3d images/metaphors, they were to be over reduced.
bad science, bad ideas, almost death.
do we train our students, or let them talk us to death?
mel jacobson/minnetonka/minnesota/usa
http://www.pclink.com/melpots
http://www.rid-a-tick.com
luckisprepaid
Vince Pitelka on sun 20 mar 05
Dear Mel -
Again, I can appreciate your passion and your position. I know that lots of
art programs have abandoned craftsmanship and mastery of technique. That is
folly, and will be proven so over time.
You paint such a dismal picture of the possibilities of pottery in academia,
and it is unfair and inaccurate. You have done it before, with equal
inaccuracy. Your story of the grad student blowing up the kiln is a
worst-case example, and in this situation it does no good at all. Yes,
things like that do happen, but so many ceramics programs in academia today
are staffed with talented potter/teachers/technicians who DO address issues
of craftsmanship and the mastery of technique. Among the graduates of their
programs are wonderful young potters. Consider current potter/teachers like
Pete Pinnell, Linda Arbuckle, Matt Long, Gail Kendall, Margaret Bohls, Linda
Sikkora, Peter Beaseker, Jason Hess, Chris Staley, Brad Schwieger, John
Neely, Diana Pancioli, Susan Filley, Julia Galloway, Kurt Weiser, Mark
Pharis, Frank Martin, Lee Rexrode - those are just the ones I can think of
off the top of my head.
I am going to take it upon myself to do my own survey of potters teaching in
university programs today, and see how they feel about the way NCECA is
heading. I really thought that things were moving in a good direction,
regarding the quality of presentations and demos. I think that a relatively
small percentage of the NCECA membership is interested in intellectual
masterbation, but apparently the NCECA Board continues to be populated with
enough people who love that shit. The problem lies in the range of people
who show up at the NCECA meetings and end up on the Board. That's gotta
change, and it is up to us to change it. Yes, academics have an advantage
in that regard, because NCECA is still an academic organization by
definintion. But maybe those of us who are academics and are potters and
love Clayart and what it stands for can do some good.
- Vince
Vince Pitelka
Appalachian Center for Craft, Tennessee Technological University
Smithville TN 37166, 615/597-6801 x111
vpitelka@dtccom.net, wpitelka@tntech.edu
http://iweb.tntech.edu/wpitelka/
http://www.tntech.edu/craftcenter/
Eric Hansen on mon 21 mar 05
Vince: Thank you for the short list of relevant ceramics teachers.
I see MFA and BFA programs that don't qualify for the accreditation
they have and that is a big part of the problem. The MFA at Univ.
of Oregon is currently a generic degree in "Art" irrespective
of discipline (Painting, sculpture, ceramics). I don't see how
that is right. What kind of MFA is that?
When I went to KU, MFA students in Ceramics were asked NOT
to throw pots - after they were accepted and the tuitions paid,
regardless of what the catalog described the program as. I thought,
glad it wasn't me. Now here in Oregon I hear this is not at all=20
an uncommon practice. And I don't see any major artists in the=20
"real" art world coming out of these programs either.
The bottom line is: If they aren't actually teaching real ceramics,
they should not be granting degrees in it. I would go so far as to=20
suggest that prospective students be warned to keep with your=20
short list or another like it if they actually plan on learning=20
anything useful or relevant.
E R I C - K A N S A S P O T T E R I N O R E G O N=20
Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2005 18:12:26 -0600
From: Vince Pitelka
Subject: Re: vince/nceca
Dear Mel -
Again, I can appreciate your passion and your position. I know that lots of
art programs have abandoned craftsmanship and mastery of technique. That is
folly, and will be proven so over time.
You paint such a dismal picture of the possibilities of pottery in academia,
and it is unfair and inaccurate. You have done it before, with equal
inaccuracy. Your story of the grad student blowing up the kiln is a
worst-case example, and in this situation it does no good at all. Yes,
things like that do happen, but so many ceramics programs in academia today
are staffed with talented potter/teachers/technicians who DO address issues
of craftsmanship and the mastery of technique. Among the graduates of their
programs are wonderful young potters. Consider current potter/teachers like
Pete Pinnell, Linda Arbuckle, Matt Long, Gail Kendall, Margaret Bohls, Linda
Sikkora, Peter Beaseker, Jason Hess, Chris Staley, Brad Schwieger, John
Neely, Diana Pancioli, Susan Filley, Julia Galloway, Kurt Weiser, Mark
Pharis, Frank Martin, Lee Rexrode - those are just the ones I can think of
off the top of my head.
I am going to take it upon myself to do my own survey of potters teaching in
university programs today, and see how they feel about the way NCECA is
heading. I really thought that things were moving in a good direction,
regarding the quality of presentations and demos. I think that a relatively
small percentage of the NCECA membership is interested in intellectual
masterbation, but apparently the NCECA Board continues to be populated with
enough people who love that shit. The problem lies in the range of people
who show up at the NCECA meetings and end up on the Board. That's gotta
change, and it is up to us to change it. Yes, academics have an advantage
in that regard, because NCECA is still an academic organization by
definintion. But maybe those of us who are academics and are potters and
love Clayart and what it stands for can do some good.
- Vince
Vince Pitelka
Appalachian Center for Craft, Tennessee Technological University
Smithville TN 37166, 615/597-6801 x111
vpitelka@dtccom.net, wpitelka@tntech.edu
http://iweb.tntech.edu/wpitelka/
http://www.tntech.edu/craftcenter/
--=20
_______________________________________________
NEW! Lycos Dating Search. The only place to search multiple dating sites at=
once.
http://datingsearch.lycos.com
william schran on mon 21 mar 05
Eric wrote>The bottom line is: If they aren't actually teaching real ceramics,
they should not be granting degrees in it. I would go so far as to
suggest that prospective students be warned to keep with your
short list or another like it if they actually plan on learning
anything useful or relevant.<
I would think any student contemplating spending money to get a BA,
BFA or MFA in ceramics would want to take the time to investigate the
school and program before even applying for admission. They would
need to ask themselves why they are seeking the degree and what they
want to do after completing their formal education.
Looking at examples of student work in the catalog and on the
school's web site would certainly provide an early indication of the
direction of the clay program.
Visiting the school/program, looking at the facilities and student
work , then speaking with faculty and students is essential to get a
real feel for the learning environment.
I feel very fortunate for my undergraduate & graduate education. I
just happened to come into both situations at the right time. Both
programs were young and growing and I was able to participate in
building each of them. My undergrad studies were primarily wheel
throwing & high fire reduction. My graduate work was primarily hand
building and mid-range oxidation. I worked in both programs as a
teaching assistant, responsible for clay/glaze mixing, kiln
loading/firing and equipment maintenance/repair. I came out well
prepared to teach in a small art program with limited budgets, or to
set up my own studio and deal with the equipment issues.
Bill
Louis Katz on mon 21 mar 05
Mostly I agree with this, but NCECA is an educational organization.
> The problem lies in the range of people
> who show up at the NCECA meetings and end up on the Board. That's
> gotta
> change, and it is up to us to change it. Yes, academics have an
> advantage
> in that regard, because NCECA is still an academic organization by
> definintion. But maybe those of us who are academics and are potters
> and
> love Clayart and what it stands for can do some good.
If someone wants advice on how to get elected, let me know. If Clayart
wants to run NCECA, show up to the business meetings and get elected.
Louis
Eric Hansen on tue 22 mar 05
Bill: Of course it is the students responsibility to know what they are get=
ting into and what they are paying for, obviously.
But we also know of programs that have problems: leadership by committee, n=
epotism, inbreeding, malfeasance, budget cuts in ceramics in order to beef =
up the tie-dyed t-shirt program, etc.
The accreditation question is very real: if a "BFA in Ceramics" doesn't inc=
lude a serious Senior critique, how is it more than just a "BA in Art"?
And, how is an "MFA in Ceramics" granted to someone whose thesis project is=
not in ceramics at all? Especially to a committee who tells you to quit wo=
rking on the wheel, they will suggest this "art beyond clay" but where does=
it all lead, and how do they have the nerve to turn these grads loose on t=
he clay world?
Who is supposed to be riding herd on accreditation in our "Colleges of Art"?
I think the ClayArt crowd has a very good sence of who they are but so many=
of these teaching institutions are just in it for the tuition dollars, off=
ering little in return except a piece of paper that says you're something t=
hat you really aren't. Mostly this is due to abandonment of basic principle=
s of technique in favor of an aesthetic which is easy to imitate: design th=
eory as what-is-art. As opposed to why do you do what do and what does that=
mean and what does that say.=20
Do you accept this cultural white wash or are you going to do the real?=20
Just my 2 cents worth; me on my soap box:
E R I C
kansas potter in Oregon
--=20
_______________________________________________
NEW! Lycos Dating Search. The only place to search multiple dating sites at=
once.
http://datingsearch.lycos.com
william schran on wed 23 mar 05
Eric wrote:>Who is supposed to be riding herd on accreditation in our
"Colleges of Art"?<
Having recently served as chair of a self study committee, directing
the writing of a report preparing for the visiting committee for
institutional re-accreditation, I have some insights into the
process. The committees that review/visit are composed of
administrators from institutions within the accrediting commission -
"who watches the watchmen?"
>....so many of these teaching institutions are just in it for the
>tuition dollars, offering little in return except a piece of paper
>that says you're something that you really aren't. Mostly this is
>due to abandonment of basic principles of technique....<
I agree, ultimately it is the responsibility of the institution for
the faculty they hire to teach the curriculum. But I often find it is
the faculty who abandon what is written in the curricula and teach
what they want, what they are comfortable with or what the "new"
thing is. This happens across the teaching/learning spectrum, not
just in clay.
I teach at what many might call the "low end" of higher education,
the community college. But what sets us apart from other
colleges/universities is that we are all about teaching. We teach our
classes, not some grad assistant. We also do research, but it's often
on our own. We write the courses/curricula.We make it real.
Bill
| |
|
