Lili Krakowski on thu 6 oct 05
As I too often quote one of the problems of Wm Morris was that he wanted to
speak to a large popular audience, but the cost of making what he wanted to
make left him "catering to the swinish luxury of the rich." (I hope I got
that right. Never sure where the "swinish" goes.)
For one: we all choose an audience to address. You may want to please
juries, gallery owners, and curators. She may want to place her pots in
gorgeous, palatial homes--i.e. please the rich (or their decorators). He may
want to speak to average middle-class people for whom a handmade pot is a
"luxury" but not an extravagance--the way champagne is a luxury but not an
extravagance. I want to speak to the people I live among, people with a
great sense of beauty, their own style, who are blue collars, and have the
work-scarred hands of farmers. I keep remembering it is these people who
gave us the quilts, the woodcarvings, the fabulous barns, and so on, these
were the people who became Shakers...in other words that these are people
with deep and rich elegance of style....and I like making pots for them.
In choosing whom to address we also decide on the level of income we make
from clay. Perhaps what we choose to make will pay all bills. Perhaps not.
So we get a second job. THAT IS NOT the issue. Poets and writers and
actors often do not make a living off their creative work. That simply is
not the issue. We seem to place far too much emphasis, in my opinion, on
income as a criterion for evaluating pots. "He makes his living off his
pottery. So he has to be good." Maybe yes, maybe no, it simply is not
relevant.
Income is one thing, the price of a pot another, the value of the pot--by
which I mean its perfection, beauty, and like that--is another still.
I keep nagging that it is the work, and only the work that counts. Forget
if you would pay $600 for a teapot. Or only $25. The question is: is it a
good teapot.
And a last thought. I use my "good stuff" because my parents, as I think
I have written before, had cabinets full of "good china" that was never
used. All went in one fell swoop in WWII. As must have endless "good
china" and " good crystal" in Katrina. Carpe diem...
Lili Krakowski
Be of good courage
Susan Nebeker on thu 6 oct 05
Lili Krakowski wrote:
"For one: we all choose an audience to address. You may want to please
juries, gallery owners, and curators. She may want to place her pots in
gorgeous, palatial homes--i.e. please the rich (or their decorators). He may
want to speak to average middle-class people for whom a handmade pot is a
"luxury" but not an extravagance--the way champagne is a luxury but not an
extravagance. I want to speak to the people I live among, people with a
great sense of beauty, their own style, who are blue collars, and have the
work-scarred hands of farmers."
Lili articulates far better than I ever can and she has so struck me with her post.
I love what she says here.
Also, I think it not generous or fair to make assumptions that if one finds Chang's work personally unappealing, that one must not have yet developed a sophisticated appreciation of form, or that if one expresses their own differing opinion/personal taste that they surely must be infected with the Green Eyed Monster.
Or that they must be beginners in their craft or newcomers to business.
Or that they SHOULD be striving to create on her level.
We all have different tastes, value systems, priorities and deeply held beliefs, thank goodness. We can all fill a niche.
It IS all about the work and then finding our own level of comfort and satisfaction in marketing it that counts.
There is no right or wrong way in that.
Really, is there?
Susan Nebeker
www.pollywogpottery.com
---------------------------------
Yahoo! for Good
Click here to donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort.
| |
|
