Hank Murrow on sun 31 jul 05
On Jul 31, 2005, at 8:15 PM, Tom at Hutchtel.net wrote:
> I do note in the quotes below from Hank and Lee and other discussions,
> that
> there is a reverence in both pastures for the amazing pots from the
> past.
> Strong forms, interesting and unique glazing...generally quiet and
> understated. This, I think was a basic tenet of the mingei movement
> that
> has been so instructive to so many modern potters. So why is it
> modern pots
> have to scream so loud? Is it because of our culture(s)? Do we have
> to scream to be heard? And if we have such a strong desire to be
> heard - to stand out, what motivates that
> desire?
>
> I have noted, in my experience, that clarity usually comes quietly and
> from
> quietness.
I remember Mr. Hamada telling us in '63 that he did not enter
competitions. He was lucky to have early recognition from a few family
friends and friends he made early on (Leach, Yanagai, an uncle) and
seemed to dodge the rush towards fame by isolating himself in rural
Mashiko. Perhaps he felt 'recognized' from an interior souce, rather
than media attention. I imagine we all need recognition from somewhere,
and it does seem critical where that is.
Cheers, Hank
www.murrow.biz/hank
Lili Krakowski on sun 31 jul 05
It is not unusual, and always appreciated , to receive off list comments on
posts.
This time, my Bumps on the Road "input" earned me a surprisingly large
bunch of posts. Some I acknowledged directly, and some I did not know what
to say to because they were written de profundis, and I was humbled and
remain speechless.
Be that as it may. For many years I have been thinking about La Condition
Potiere. A term I use for conciseness not elitism. Pottery Condition, The
Condition of Potters, just sounds clunky and is not as precise.
We keep going round and round about three times a year about WHO IS A REAL
POTTER. This discussion comes in diverse flavors. It does not matter.
It is always the same.
The question is asked, REPEATEDLY; is someone who earns a living off selling
pots a more real potter than someone who does not? If so are professors or
teachers of pottery "real potters", since they earn their livings primarily
as teachers? If someone can pot full time because of a pension (as from a
college) disability, alimony, trust fund, an oil well in the back yard, is
that person a real potter? Obviously there is some sort of insecurity out
there, like that of people who worry about who is a real man, a real woman,
a real anything. WHY?
Were Leach and Hamada realer potters than let us say some illiterate,
subsistence-level potter who makes water jugs in deepest Africa?
The questions go on. This is both of interest and concern to me as I am
still working on a book whose working title is "The Problem of Wm Morris."
I see this problem as that of the Arts & Crafts Movement, a 'problem' of
intellectuals and the handcrafts, and "our" relationship to fellow clay folk
who are not college educated, not privileged--and, yo, not "one of us."
I know this will all return to Clayart.
But right now I hope to have Rav Mel's nihil obstat to ask those of you who
care and think about this, and have some spare time, to discuss this with
me/us off list.
Not from preciosity, but because I hope this will become serious talk, and
serious talk can bore those who do not care to death.
Lili Krakowski
Be of good courage
Tom at Hutchtel.net on sun 31 jul 05
It seems that there is some enlightenment in Hank, Lee, Tony, EP, JimW,
LiliK and
others posts in regard to this issue of production functional pottery versus
art functional pottery and who is a real potter.
It's not that one is better than the other, or that either type of potter is
in the right cow pasture or the wrong one...it seems that they are in
different pastures and there lies the news.
Those in the production pasture seem to be more informed by function and by
the users needs. Those in the Art pasture are more informed by their own
egos and by the current fads of the art pottery collector who is actually a
user. For the art
potter to say they don't give a darn about the customer, it's all what I
want to do, smacks of a certain amount of BS (most pastures have some). If
this isn't true, why do so many art pots follow trends like big beaked
pitchers, or the (bottom to top) narrow, wide, narrow, wide vase shape.
On the other hand, the production potter always seems to feel a pull to the
art side...otherwise why the focus on some of the glazes and techniques
drawn from the "artistic side".
The grass probably seems somewhat greener on the other side (from either
side) and there is BS in both fields. (It should be noted there are
scientific reasons why the grass looks greener over there.)
It also seems there is a bit too much "I'm in the right field, why don't
you get into it." conversation going on.
I do note in the quotes below from Hank and Lee and other discussions, that
there is a reverence in both pastures for the amazing pots from the past.
Strong forms, interesting and unique glazing...generally quiet and
understated. This, I think was a basic tenet of the mingei movement that
has been so instructive to so many modern potters. So why is it modern pots
have to scream so loud? Is it
because of our culture(s)? Do we have to scream to be heard? And if we
have such a strong desire to be heard - to stand out, what motivates that
desire?
I have noted, in my experience, that clarity usually comes quietly and from
quietness.
It reminds me of the story of the two bulls in a field looking down at a
herd of cows grazing peacefully......but that's another analogy.
Tom Wirt
----- Original Message -----
>>Subject: Re: Coveting the beautiful. was the best pot ever
>
>> > Their house was brimming full, from floor to ceiling with Song Dynasty
>> > porcelain and stoneware!
>>
> Hank Murrow wrote:
>
>> Your wonderful experience(and the lessons drawn from it) reminds me of
>> handling the 120 or so pots that Hamada Shoji and his son, Shinsaku,
>> made during their workshop in '63. Just quietly sitting there, waiting
>> to be 'eaten', as he suggested we do.
>
> Hank and Steve,
>
> My single most memorable day of my apprenticeship, was when we
> unpacked my teacher's entire collection of Korean Yi pottery.......
.....> deshis because I was going too slow. But Sensei didn't say
anything,
> so I kept "taking the pots in." I don't know if the other deshis knew
> exactly what we were handling. Some of the bowls and pilgrim flasks
> with lotuses and fish on them, I had only seen before behind glass at
> museums. Before my apprenticeship, Korean Yi was my favorite
> pottery. After my apprenticeship, my appreciation only grew. When I
> started making my own work again after graduation, I started stamping
> my pots with the character for Yi (It is pronounced Lee in Korean.)
>
>
> "We can make our minds so like still water that beings gather about us
> that they may see,
> it may be, their own images, and so live for a moment with a clearer,
> perhaps even with a fiercer life because of our quiet."
>
> -- W.B. Yeats
From: "Lili Krakowski"
Subject: OT: LA CONDITION POTIERE
> This time, my Bumps on the Road "input" earned me a surprisingly large
> bunch of posts.
> Be that as it may. For many years I have been thinking about La Condition
> Potiere. A term I use for conciseness not elitism. Pottery Condition,
> The
> Condition of Potters, just sounds clunky and is not as precise.
>
> We keep going round and round about three times a year about WHO IS A REAL
> POTTER.
> The question is asked, REPEATEDLY; is someone who earns a living off
> selling
> pots a more real potter than someone who does not? If so are professors
> or
> teachers of pottery "real potters", since they earn their livings
> primarily
> as teachers?
> Were Leach and Hamada realer potters than let us say some illiterate,
> subsistence-level potter who makes water jugs in deepest Africa?
Lee Love on wed 3 aug 05
--- In clayart@yahoogroups.com, Hank Murrow wrote:
>
> I remember Mr. Hamada telling us in '63 that he did not enter
> competitions
Ceramics competetion is a little different here. Some of the
people work on one object for a full year and then enter that into
competetion. They don't have an arts grant system like they do back
home. Actually, I think the department store shows Hamada did, do
as much if not more for fame here as competetions do.
Both Hamada and Leach had patrons, which were sort of their
counterpart to our grant system. Folks gave Hamada money to go with
Leach to England. St. Ives was subsidized for many years. So they
had a lot of help.
Yanagi was well connected and promoted the work of people in his
circle. We could all use a good "Yanagi." :-)
Of course, when you are a National Living Treasure, you don't
have to enter competetions.
Not long after I arrived for my apprenticeship, we went to the
graduation show of the guy I replaced at Takumi on the Tokyo Ginza.
There was a pack of us apprentices, about 6, and the gallery people,
surrounding Shimaoka Sensei, as we walked down the road. People
stopped and bowed to Sensei as we walked by.
--
Lee Love
in Mashiko, Japan http://mashiko.org
http://seisokuro.blogspot.com/ My Photo Logs
"The way we are, we are members of each other. All of us. Everything.
The difference ain't in who is a member and who is not, but in who knows it and who don't."
-- Burley Coulter (Wendell Berry)
| |
|
