Malcolm Schosha on sun 4 jun 06
Since there has been some discussion about the importance of MFAs for
potters, I have decided to say a few words to clarify my own views on
education in general, and about pottery education in particular.
I am not opposed to college education; although I have my doubts that
colleges and universities are the best place to learn pottery, or even
a good place. In fact, most of the reasons for getting the MFA are
centered adound the need for a teaching position. I was a self
employed production potter for years, and no one at any store I sold
to ever asked to see my resume, or asked if I had any degree at all.
They were only interested in the quality and saleability of the my
product, and my ability to deliver an order on time.
There is nothing I value more than education, and all three of my kids
went to college with my encouragement, but they did not study art
there. The artist's disposition is not naturally compatible with large
bureaucracies, which is a significant part of what colleges and
universities are. For potters who really have the disposition to teach
(its a calling that I respect) the MFA may justified. But for potters
who just want to make pots, I really do not see what will be gained.
I studied sculpture for four years (with Jose De Creeft) at the Art
Students League in NYC, and for another year at the Accademia di Belle
Arti in Florence. I studied pottery for three years at L'Istituto
Statale d'Arte Ceramica in Sesto Fiorentino, which is six miles south
of Florence. After that I worked as a production thrower at the studio
of Erminio Giardelli, in Sesto Fiorentino. My later training in
calligraphy came mostly through taking workshops with the Society of
Scribes in New York City. All this adds up to a fair amount to study
and training for someone considered anti-education; although none of
it got me a certificate from a college or university. Every bit of my
education was aimed at acquiring the skills to professional work; none
of it toward teaching, which I do not care to do.
Nevertheless, some people feel happier getting their educations in
colleges and universities, and that is fine with me. The way the world
is, that is a practical thing to do. But that practical way does not
work for me, and it does not work for a lot of artists. The artists I
went to school with at the Art Students League, back in the 1960s were
into speaking truth to authority. The ones on the receiving end (the
authority end) call that a big mouth. It is not an artistic philosophy
of life. It is the artistic disposition, something that is never
intend. Not everyone appreciates that quality in artists, so I
understand that some people, including some on this list, get annoyed.
As Ben Shahn noted in his book, The Shape of Content, not everyone who
would like a Van Gogh in their living room would like Van Gogh in
their living room. Shahn's point was that Van Gogh was big mouth,
inclined to give his opinion without waiting to be asked; as was Ben
Shahn himself. In fact before artists started getting 'educated' in
colleges, they were typically considered just the sort big mouths that
could not get along in an organization. Since colleges really are big
bureaucracies, they require the people in them to go along with their
organizational structure. Naturally, the 'artists' coming out of them
are rather different, more tame, than was common previously.
The university takeover of pottery is pretty funny when I think about
it. A lot of people with college educations became potters back in the
1960s and 1970s because they thought it was counter culture, and
because they thought that the alternative lifestyle was a better
lifestyle. But after a while, they ditched the counter culture life
style (well, maybe some of the guys kept the ponytail), and they held
on to the diplomas instead. And that is how things stayed. Now the
ones with the BAs, the MFAs, are called the 'real' potters, and the
people who used to be potters are now depicted as just uncreative
workers.
That would be okay too if many of the college educated potters, with
their teaching positions, were not actually teaching their students,
and telling the world, that the traditional pottery skills are
contrary to creativity. So, now, a potter who can design a useful pot,
and throw twenty of those pots an hour that look pretty good and are
made to the same measurements, is proving, by that very act, his/her
lesser artistic stature to a potter who can not do that. Its become a
strange world of pottery, in which acquiring traditional skills have
been pictured as proof of incompetence, and incompetence as proof of
creativity. This is the method used by the educated to confiscate, and
take possession of a field of endeavor that used to belong to workers.
The result of this is that, these days, both potters and public
increasingly look down on the traditional approaches to pottery as
inferior; and, increasingly, they see the only realistic path to be
through college training and degrees.
Malcolm Schosha
Brooklyn, NY
Vince Pitelka on sun 4 jun 06
Malcolm Schosha wrote:
> The university takeover of pottery is pretty funny when I think about
> it. A lot of people with college educations became potters back in the
> 1960s and 1970s because they thought it was counter culture, and
> because they thought that the alternative lifestyle was a better
> lifestyle. But after a while, they ditched the counter culture life
> style (well, maybe some of the guys kept the ponytail), and they held
> on to the diplomas instead. And that is how things stayed. Now the
> ones with the BAs, the MFAs, are called the 'real' potters, and the
> people who used to be potters are now depicted as just uncreative
> workers.
Ah, Malcolm. I have enjoyed many of your posts and your voice of late, but
it is a shame that paragraphs like the above have to keep appearing. Don't
get me wrong, you are of course welcome and entitled to express your own
opinions about education in the arts, but you have a way of stating things
as fact without offering substance to back it up. I supposed that we all do
that to some extent if we are confident of our opinions. I know I have been
guilty of that. But to matter-of-factly refer to "the university takeover
of pottery" as if it was some kind of staged coup is humorous. Back in the
60s and 70s, people didn't become potters because they thought it was
counterculture. They were the counterculture already and in college pottery
was a popular course of study. You're putting the cart before the horse.
Training and education in the ceramic arts was in great demand, so of course
the academic art departments filled the need. If other options for training
in the ceramic arts diminshed over the years, is it really appropriate to
blame academia?
Much of the counterculture had to do with the specific time and place, so
yes, with the passage of time we have ditched a lot of that baggage. Hell,
I've even ditched my ponytail, and I am enjoying being able to drive with
all the windows down without my hair whipping me in the face - what a treat!
But there are lots of elements of the counterculture that permanently
changed the way we think and act, and thank goodness for that. To say that
we ditched the counterculture but some held on to their ponytails is to
trivialized that whole cultural dynamic in the extreme.
It is a shame that you think someone refers to the potters with BAs and MFAs
as the "real potters." Has anyone else on Clayart ever heard of such a
thing? I've never heard anyone say or imply that, in or out of academia.
Through the 35 years I have been involved in ceramics I have known many
excellent potters who didn't have BAs or MFAs, and it didn't seem to hold
them back. I have never advocated the academic approach as the ONLY route
to studio art. I have simply defended it as a good and valid route - not
because I am trying to defend my job, but because I know it works.
You said:
"That would be okay too if many of the college educated potters, with their
teaching positions, were not actually teaching their students, and telling
the world, that the traditional pottery skills are contrary to creativity."
Malcolm, in mainstream art academia today there is a terrible epidemic of
"fine arts" teachers (primarily in sculpture and painting) who have
abandoned focus on process, technique, and materials in favor of conceptual
content, as if the artist need only come up with the concept. I know that
this problem exists, although the mainstream ART world is moving beyond the
totally concept-focused approach, and an emphasis on craftsmanship and
materials is coming back. You can see it all the time in contemporary art
that is appearing right now. It might take a little while, but those
academics who have abandoned process, technique, and materials will be left
in the dust, and students will avoid them. They will be forced to change
their approach. In the mean time there are plenty of us who focus on
craftsmanship and technique, and are specifically committed to that
approach. Our mission statement at the Craft Center specifically emphasizes
a focus on the highest-quality professional fine craft education.
So I'd be interested in specific examples of "colledge educated potters,
with their teaching positions . . . telling the world that the traditional
pottery skills are contrary to creativity." I know a great many very fine
college educated potters who have teaching positions and are real sticklers
for craftsmanship and technique. In fact, I personally know of no clay
academics who have done what you say, so where are they? Or more
accurately, what has caused you to adopt this incredibly negative attitude
towards the teaching of studio ceramics in academia? I see pottery being
taught very successfully in so many universities, so I'm a little baffled by
this recurrent theme in your posts. I'd love to hear of some more-specific
examples and documentation.
- 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/
Malcolm Schosha on mon 5 jun 06
--- In clayart@yahoogroups.com, Vince Pitelka wrote:
> Ah, Malcolm. I have enjoyed many of your posts and your voice of late, but
> it is a shame that paragraphs like the above have to keep appearing. Don't
> get me wrong, you are of course welcome and entitled to express your own
> opinions about education in the arts, but you have a way of stating things
> as fact without offering substance to back it up. I supposed that we all do
> that to some extent if we are confident of our opinions. I know I have been
> guilty of that. But to matter-of-factly refer to "the university takeover
> of pottery" as if it was some kind of staged coup is humorous. Back in the
> 60s and 70s, people didn't become potters because they thought it was
> counterculture. They were the counterculture already and in college pottery
> was a popular course of study. You're putting the cart before the horse.
> Training and education in the ceramic arts was in great demand, so of course
> the academic art departments filled the need. If other options for training
> in the ceramic arts diminshed over the years, is it really appropriate to
> blame academia?
.................................................................
Vince wrote: "They were the counterculture already and in college pottery
was a popular course of study. You're putting the cart before the horse.
Training and education in the ceramic arts was in great demand, so of course
the academic art departments filled the need."
Hi Vince,
They may have been counter culture already, but they were not artists,
nor even craftspeople, already. The ones I met were mostly, former
engineers, lawyers, business people, etc. They really did not
understand what was involved from the perspective of artists or
craftspeople. They did not understand the amount of time and work that
is necessary. Even if they had taken a college pottery class or two,
that did not make them a potters, much less an artists.
My sculpture teacher, Jose De Creeft, was already an accomplished
sculptor (in clay) when he decided to take up stone carving. He
learned by taking a job in a carving studio that made reproductions,
and stayed long enough to master the skills he wanted.
I studied at an excellent school, in Sesto Fiorentino, that taught
pottery only. I had two excellent throwing teachers, I bought an old
kick wheel so I could practice at home after class, and got the school
to allow me extra time on the wheel and extra instructional time. But
it took three more years, in a production studio, to get to the level
of quality I considered professional.
Stone carving, throwing, and many other things have traditions with
high standards. There is now way to get those skills without putting
in the work. Not just any work, but mastering exactly the traditional
skills.
No one who has seen De Creeft's sculpture could call it imitative of
the past; he broke new ground, and knew that the traditional skills
were needed to do that. It is the skill that makes it possible to
realize your dreams. Without the skill, hoping to accomplish anything
significant will remain just a dream.
I do not know if we are in agreement on this point, or not; but that
is what I think. Without the traditional skills as a basis to work
with there is neither craft nor art, and such pottery seldom amounts
to much more than a pile of clay. No amount of talk about 'the mark of
the hand', or 'spontaneity' will replace the failure to master the
craft.
When I get some time later, I will say some more about the part I
think colleges and universities have played in what has gone wrong in
the arts in general.
Be well.
Malcolm
Lee Love on mon 5 jun 06
On 6/5/06, Malcolm Schosha wrote:
> The result of this is that, these days, both potters and public
> increasingly look down on the traditional approaches to pottery as
> inferior; and, increasingly, they see the only realistic path to be
> through college training and degrees.
Malcolm,
These paths are not mutually exclusive.
As I look at my Sensei's American apprentices, I know of only
three who are employed full time related to pottery back in the
States, and unlike myself, they all have University studio arts
degrees.
Maybe a combination of both kinds of studies is the best way to
actually work in the field? Bottom line is, we have to do what
works for us. I can't put my path down on anybody else. It is
like making them wear your shoes without know what size their foot is.
--
Lee In Mashiko, Japan
http://mashiko.org
http://seisokuro.blogspot.com/
"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 ho don't."
--Burley Coulter (Wendell Berry)
Malcolm Schosha on tue 6 jun 06
--- In clayart@yahoogroups.com, Lee Love wrote:
>
> On 6/5/06, Malcolm Schosha wrote:
>
> > The result of this is that, these days, both potters and public
> > increasingly look down on the traditional approaches to pottery as
> > inferior; and, increasingly, they see the only realistic path to be
> > through college training and degrees.
>
> Malcolm,
>
> These paths are not mutually exclusive.
>
> As I look at my Sensei's American apprentices, I know of only
> three who are employed full time related to pottery back in the
> States, and unlike myself, they all have University studio arts
> degrees.
>
> Maybe a combination of both kinds of studies is the best way to
> actually work in the field? Bottom line is, we have to do what
> works for us. I can't put my path down on anybody else. It is
> like making them wear your shoes without know what size their foot is.
.....................................................
Lee,
I am not opposed to college educations for potters. There is nothing I
respect more than education, including college education.
What I was saying is completely different: it is important in pottery
to master some basic techniques.
There is nothing that can be done about the attitude of disrespect
that is common in America toward those without the minimal BA. There
is one member of this forum who contacted me off list a few months
ago, who did not have another word to say after finding out that I am
uneducated. This is pretty common, and part of why traditional
craftsmen are considered inferior to college trained 'educated'
potters. Of course education (much less, culture) does not come from
colleges, but from personal effort and work.
It is natural for people to think that what they have is valuable. So
if they have an MFA, it is naturally valuable to them; and those who
don't have that will seem to be missing the very thing they value.
Malcolm
"Dogs bark, but the caravan passes on." Arabic proverb
Vince Pitelka on tue 6 jun 06
Malcolm Schosha wrote:
> There is nothing that can be done about the attitude of disrespect
> that is common in America toward those without the minimal BA. There
> is one member of this forum who contacted me off list a few months
> ago, who did not have another word to say after finding out that I am
> uneducated. This is pretty common, and part of why traditional
> craftsmen are considered inferior to college trained 'educated'
> potters. Of course education (much less, culture) does not come from
> colleges, but from personal effort and work.
Malcolm -
I don't doubt what you say, but I am saddened that anyone on Clayart would
do that - to cut off communication when they find out that the other person
does not have a college degree. The individual who did that is a true
elitist snob, and I can only imagine how much good information and
opportunity they are missing out on in life. As a professional educator in
a university, I have a strong commitment to academia, but to imply that
education can occur only in the formal academic setting would be very
shortsighted and self-serving. The most important thing is for each person
to seek the education that can best serve them, and there are many possible
avenues.
Your comment that "education (much less, culture) does not come from
colleges but from personal effort and work" is mostly true. Excellent
education can come from colleges, but only if the student is willing to
invest the effort and work. But that's true of almost everything in life -
without the investment of effort, few things are worth pursuing. Regarding
culture, there is an alarming trend for university-based culture to become
inbred and self-perpetuating to the point where it begins to supplant "real
life" culture. I know that this exists and I try to avoid it.
University-centered culture can become a strange and elitist adaptation of
popular culture, and when that happens, it tends to alienate the people it
most needs to attract and involve. I think that most educators who are in
the business for the right reasons are trying to combat this trend.
I think that the most important lesson here is that anyone who talks down to
you or rejects you because you don't have a degree in clay is not worth
bothering with. Such treatment reflects negatively on them, not on you.
You are obviously and deservedly proud of the training and experience that
you have, and that's all that matters.
- 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/
Lee Love on wed 7 jun 06
On 6/7/06, Malcolm Schosha wrote:
> What I was saying is completely different: it is important in pottery
> to master some basic techniques.
Certainly. Now if you made the argument, that studio arts
programs should include these values, I think your criticism would be
more productive. We always get in trouble with categorial
dismissals.
> ago, who did not have another word to say after finding out that I am
> uneducated. This is pretty common, and part of why traditional
> craftsmen are considered inferior to college trained 'educated'
> potters.
$B!!!!!! (BReally, you just need to ignore these folks. Inflexibility like
this is evidence of a weak character and a lack of live experience.
I have met traditional potters who think college is a waste of time
and MFAs who think apprenticeships are a waste of time. Both kinds
of attitudes are without basis and are easy to ignore.
> It is natural for people to think that what they have is valuable.
You hit it on the head. A provencial mind will only value
what it knows. I have met expansive minded people from all walks of
life and of all educational backgrounds.
"Life has no other discipline to impose, if we would but realize it,
than to accept life unquestioningly. Everything we shut our eyes to,
everything we run away from, everything we deny, denigrate, or
despise, serves to defeat us in the end. What seems nasty, painful,
evil, can become a source of beauty, joy, and strength, if faced with
an open mind. Every moment is a golden one for him who has the vision
to recognize it as such."
-- Henry Miller
--
Lee in Mashiko, Japan
http://mashiko.org
My google Notebooks:
http://tinyurl.com/e5p3n
"Let the beauty we love be what we do." - Rumi
| |
|
