Donald Burroughs on sun 4 mar 07
contemporaries
I like when I get this sort of dialogue from my fellow clayarters. Your
perspectives I would not doubt for a moment. And yes ,I did admit those
pots/forms by Picasso were awesome. I just had to rant on this article
because I feel that there are a lot of great potters/sculptors of clay who
devoted a lifetime to their discipline and have never got nearly the
coverage in the media. They may not have been a Picasso, but they were
Coper, Hamada, B.Leach, M.Cardew and Maria Martinez, but to name a few and
damn it I know I will get flak for not naming someone in this list.
Unless one is a collector or maker of ceramic objects how many people
could you pull off the street,not knowing them from Adam/Eve and ask them
about the legends I mentioned here. Mention Picasso and no doubt you would
ellict a better response. This is a result of a lack of recognition by the
majority of the Western visual arts intelligensia/gallery community to
value clay art as an equal to the other so-called 'fine arts'. We do have
the Everson, the Canadian Clay and Glass Gallery, and the Northern Clay
Center, but they are still seen by the public as being on the periphery of
art ,and not necessarily as fine art.
Clay is medium which functions on all levels from the local crafts sale to
yes Picasso, but do we see articles on stolen works of ceramics? Have
there been international articles on the some of the ceramic/clay artist
greats?
I've seen it at the local level, for example,potter and teacher Robert
Archambeau was given a full page spread in one of our local newspapers. A
remarkable achievement I believe, and knowing him personally he is not a
tooter of his own horn, but rather a quiet and unassuming individual.
Maybe, fortunately, the internet will provide the media exposure the clay
arts deserve, although it would be nice to read the ocassional tribute to
a master clay artist (as morbid as that may sound) or the pilfered pot of
some twenty-century clay artist who devoted their career to the "mud art"
in the newspaper.
I look forward to your responses.
Donald Burroughs
Kathy Forer on mon 5 mar 07
contemporaries
On Mar 4, 2007, at 9:15 AM, Donald Burroughs wrote:
> Clay is medium which functions on all levels from the local crafts =20
> sale to
> yes Picasso, but do we see articles on stolen works of ceramics?
"Follow the money," harsh or cynical as that may be.
Because ceramics and sculpture, like printmaking, can be made in =20
multiples they are often devalued on the art commodities markets, =20
while paintings have the essential cachet of being more obviously =20
unique.
Picasso's ceramics are apparently affordable for collectors, an =20
average piece (of what? it doesn't say) might sell for EUR150 today, =20
a far cry from his Gar=E7on =E0 la Pipe (Boy with a Pipe) which sold for =
=20
$US104.1 million in 2004.
http://www.artmarketinsight.com/en/art_article.aspx?=20
idfrom=3D1&from=3DT&id=3D65
There's quite an industry made up around Picasso's ceramics. His =20
prints too.
So the question is really that of one vs. many, traditionalists vs. =20
innovators, even relativism vs. absolutism.
Also "(fetishization and) commodification of the art object," an 80s =20
theory which would appear to have us all painting found pictures in =20
the sands of time on the shores of the dying ocean. Though it's =20
responsible for or implicated in some highly creative art works. Mona =20=
Hatoum's "Self-erasing Drawing" immediately comes to mind: See =20
motion.html> with link to video of work.
And the Internet adds a new dimension as (not so) soon we may be able =20=
to order a ceramic vase to be made in our home 3d printer but fired =20
in...? again the craftsman, either kiln-master or web mistress holds =20
the key to the technology, to the making. But not necessarily to the =20
design or communication of objects and ideas.
> Have
> there been international articles on the some of the ceramic/clay =20
> artist
> greats?
"The Art of Betty Woodman" received a lot of attention for the NY =20
Metropolitan Museum exhibit of her vases including an apropos NYTimes =20=
article entitled "ART; Yes, They're Clay, But Don't Dare Call Them =20
Ceramics" res=3DF20A16F73C5B0C708EDDAD0894DE404482>
Ruth Duckworth also got a lot of "NY press" for her recent =20
exhibition. NYC is a pretty international place, I suppose, though =20
it's only one and it's not the auction amrket which most people think =20=
of when International recognition" is put into play. See www.madmuseum.org/site/c.drKLI1PIIqE/b.1107981/k.781C/=20
Archived_Exhibitions.htm>
The Museum of Arts and Design occupies a place that pretty much =20
epitomizes the conflict you observe. It's a museum housed in a =20
building, -- originally the Huntington Hartford Gallery of Modern Art =20=
and recently home to NYC Department of Cultural Affairs, -- that is =20
regularly condemned or applauded by architectural or social critics. =20
Hopefully the museum will have a long and active stay there though =20
I'm very sorry to see Edward Durell Stone's unique facade defaced in =20
the way it will be.
Here's an article by Jed Perl in The New Republic that seems to touch =20=
on the reasons for Bernard Leach's arch-artisanal derisive opinion of =20=
Pablo Picasso's ceramics as well as Ken Price's ceramic sculpture =20
which "mocks all the neat old distinctions between the art traditions =20=
and the craft traditions."
:
Ceramists are a strange lot," John Ashbery observed a
quarter of a century ago, reviewing an exhibition of
American ceramics. Commenting on how resentful they
could be about their shaky standing in the art world, he
wryly observed that "Nietzsche said that it is not the
business of the gods to make clay pots, but few potters
would agree with him." Ashbery implied that ceramists
had a point, and it is difficult not to feel that
pottery can have a divine spark after you have taken a
look at something like the late sixteenth-century tea
bowl in red raku included in the Metropolitan's "Turning
Point" show, a bowl that is known as Twilight on account
of the delicately shimmering radiance of its surface.
Something in the chemical effect of the glaze, in the
blurring of gray and orange and gold, analogizes
meteorological effects in much the same way as Turner's
bursts of watercolor on ultra-absorbent paper, only the
effect is far more abstract. This tea bowl is not about
twilight, it is twilight.
Perl also has a timely paragraph on the potter and the kiln:
Potters regard the firing of their work with a mixture
of anxiety and awe, which is no surprise when you see
what heat can do for minerals on the glaze of a bowl
such as Twilight. There comes a time in any working
process when the artist is not entirely in control, but
for the ceramist whose pots are in the kiln this is
literally true. There is no phase in the work of a
painter or a sculptor or a printmaker or a weaver that
can match the moment of truth when the potter goes into
the cooling kiln to see what has transpired. Accounts of
the lives of potters are full of tales of calamities in
the kiln. When wood-fired kilns were the only ones
available, just keeping proper temperatures could be
harrowing; catastrophes were frequent, but sometimes the
very unpredictability of the process yielded
extraordinary, unexpected results. For the ceramist, the
fire in the kiln is nothing less than divine
intervention.
Kathy Forer
Kathy Forer on mon 5 mar 07
contemporaries, redo! now ASCII without =20 linefeeds
note: I made sure this was text only. Alas, I didn't eliminate the
accents or tabbed indents and they seemed to have triggered all those
=20s linefeeds, =E7s and such, making it hard to read as well as
breaking the links. So here it is again. Not that I think it's so
wonderful but I wrote it to be read and it's near unreadable with all
those = signs. I've converted this to ascii in BBEdit and hopefully
it will look nice and tame.
On Mar 4, 2007, at 9:15 AM, Donald Burroughs wrote:
> Clay is medium which functions on all levels from the local crafts
> sale to
> yes Picasso, but do we see articles on stolen works of ceramics?
"Follow the money," harsh or cynical as that may be.
Because ceramics and sculpture, like printmaking, can be made in
multiples they are often devalued on the art commodities markets,
while paintings have the essential cachet of being more obviously
unique.
Picasso's ceramics are apparently affordable for collectors, an
average piece (of what? it doesn't say) might sell for EUR150 today,
a far cry from his Garcon a la Pipe (Boy with a Pipe) which sold for
$US104.1 million in 2004.
idfrom=1&from=T&id=65>
There's quite an industry made up around Picasso's ceramics. His
prints too.
So the question is really that of one vs. many, traditionalists vs.
innovators, even relativism vs. absolutism.
Also "(fetishization and) commodification of the art object," an 80s
theory which would appear to have us all painting found pictures in
the sands of time on the shores of the dying ocean. Though it's
responsible for or implicated in some highly creative art works. Mona
Hatoum's "Self-erasing Drawing" immediately comes to mind: See
motion.html> with link to video of work.
And the Internet adds a new dimension as (not so) soon we may be able
to order a ceramic vase to be made in our home 3d printer but fired
in...? again the craftsman, either kiln-master or web mistress holds
the key to the technology, to the making. But not necessarily to the
design or communication of objects and ideas.
> Have there been international articles on the some of
> the ceramic/clay artist greats?
"The Art of Betty Woodman" received a lot of attention for the NY
Metropolitan Museum exhibit of her vases including an apropos NYTimes
article entitled "ART; Yes, They're Clay, But Don't Dare Call Them
Ceramics"
res=F20A16F73C5B0C708EDDAD0894DE404482>
Ruth Duckworth also got a lot of "NY press" for her recent
exhibition. NYC is a pretty international place, I suppose, though
it's only one and it's not the auction amrket which most people think
of when International recognition" is put into play. See www.madmuseum.org/site/c.drKLI1PIIqE/b.1107981/k.781C/
Archived_Exhibitions.htm>
The Museum of Arts and Design occupies a place that pretty much
epitomizes the conflict you observe. It's a museum housed in a
building, -- originally the Huntington Hartford Gallery of Modern Art
and recently home to NYC Department of Cultural Affairs, -- that is
regularly condemned or applauded by architectural or social critics.
Hopefully the museum will have a long and active stay there though
I'm very sorry to see Edward Durell Stone's unique facade defaced in
the way it will be.
I'm not sure what an international article is but here's an article
by Jed Perl in The New Republic that seems to touch on the reasons
for Bernard Leach's arch-artisanal derisive opinion of Pablo
Picasso's ceramics as well as Ken Price's ceramic sculpture which
"mocks all the neat old distinctions between the art traditions and
the craft traditions."
:
Ceramists are a strange lot," John Ashbery observed a
quarter of a century ago, reviewing an exhibition of
American ceramics. Commenting on how resentful they
could be about their shaky standing in the art world, he
wryly observed that "Nietzsche said that it is not the
business of the gods to make clay pots, but few potters
would agree with him." Ashbery implied that ceramists
had a point, and it is difficult not to feel that
pottery can have a divine spark after you have taken a
look at something like the late sixteenth-century tea
bowl in red raku included in the Metropolitan's "Turning
Point" show, a bowl that is known as Twilight on account
of the delicately shimmering radiance of its surface.
Something in the chemical effect of the glaze, in the
blurring of gray and orange and gold, analogizes
meteorological effects in much the same way as Turner's
bursts of watercolor on ultra-absorbent paper, only the
effect is far more abstract. This tea bowl is not about
twilight, it is twilight.
Perl also has a timely paragraph on the potter and the kiln:
Potters regard the firing of their work with a mixture
of anxiety and awe, which is no surprise when you see
what heat can do for minerals on the glaze of a bowl
such as Twilight. There comes a time in any working
process when the artist is not entirely in control, but
for the ceramist whose pots are in the kiln this is
literally true. There is no phase in the work of a
painter or a sculptor or a printmaker or a weaver that
can match the moment of truth when the potter goes into
the cooling kiln to see what has transpired. Accounts of
the lives of potters are full of tales of calamities in
the kiln. When wood-fired kilns were the only ones
available, just keeping proper temperatures could be
harrowing; catastrophes were frequent, but sometimes the
very unpredictability of the process yielded
extraordinary, unexpected results. For the ceramist, the
fire in the kiln is nothing less than divine
intervention.
Kathy Forer
Lee Love on mon 5 mar 07
contemporaries
Being recognized as "high art" can hurt functional pottery.
Functional pottery is fully recognized as "high art" here in Japan.
But, to a degree, it takes the pots out of use. My wife Jean used
a couple of Shimaoka banchawan we had, every day for several years,
but chipped one one day. I told her it wasn't a big deal. It is
meant to be used. But she chose to stop using the unbroken one.
We can't afford to replace them, and only received his work while I
apprenticed there as gifts.
I used to live and work at the Northern Warehouse Artists
Cooperative. I don't recall ANY fine artists living there making a
living off of their work . They rarely sold anything at the art
crawls. But craft people always sold. Craft, photographers,
graphic designers, set builders and jugglers were the people making a
living from their work.
Would it really be better to emulate "fine art" like oil
painting, only have a handful of ceramic artists making big bucks?
Or is it better having many more people making work and bus driver
wages?
Don't be jealous of the majority of fine artist who have to
finance their art with another job.
--
Lee in Mashiko, Japan
Minneapolis, Minnesota USA
http://potters.blogspot.com/
"To affect the quality of the day, that is the highest of arts." -
Henry David Thoreau
"Let the beauty we love be what we do." - Rumi
Lois Ruben Aronow on mon 5 mar 07
contemporaries
>"Follow the money," harsh or cynical as that may be.
I sincerely doubt Picasso needed "the money", especially at the point in =
his
career he took on ceramics as a medium. He was already well-established =
and
didn't need the fame, either.
Besides, anyone who gets into ceramics for the money and fame (or the =
arts -
any branch - you chose) is na=EFve at best and a fool (ok, and idiot) to =
top
it off.
...Lo
*****
Lois Ruben Aronow Ceramics =20
www.loisaronow.com
www.craftsofthedamned.blogspot.com
=20
Kathy Forer on mon 5 mar 07
contemporaries
On Mar 5, 2007, at 8:31 AM, Lois Ruben Aronow wrote:
>> "Follow the money," harsh or cynical as that may be.
>
> I sincerely doubt Picasso needed "the money", especially at the
> point in =
> his
> career he took on ceramics as a medium. He was already well-
> established =
> and
> didn't need the fame, either.
Lois, the statement means just the opposite. It was in response to
Donald musing or fretting that "stolen works of ceramics" receive
little press while those of "fine arts" make headlines. If you follow
the money, there are much larger sums in fine arts than there is in
ceramics, so that's why we don't hear of the theft of a $9000 pot,
it's just not the same as the theft of a $90 mil painting.
Kathy Forer
Lois Ruben Aronow on mon 5 mar 07
contemporaries
With all due respect, not all pottery is functional. Creating sculptural
and/or abstract work using clay as a medium is also legitimate, and this
list is for and about people who use clay as a artistic medium.
It is also unfair to make generalizations about "fine artists" not making
any money off their work. One of my good friends was just nominated for a
Rome Prize, and a mutual friend won a McArthur last year. I know people who
are in the MOMA private collection, as well as craftspeople collected by
MAD. I'm not anyone special; I just happen to live in NY.
> Would it really be better to emulate "fine art" like oil
>painting, only have a handful of ceramic artists making big bucks?
> Or is it better having many more people making work and bus driver wages?
> Don't be jealous of the majority of fine artist who have to
finance their art >with another job.
This is the craziest thing I have ever heard. Or perhaps it's just not
translating well in email. Almost every craftsperson - in all disciplines -
either finance their art through a day job and/or have a "working" partner.
One should make the work they want to because they love making it. There is
no other good reason, and there is no reason for anyone to look down their
noses at any else's art, craft, talent, or ambition.
...Lo
***
Lois Ruben Aronow Ceramics
www.loisaronow.com
www.craftsofthedamned.blogspot.com
Lois Ruben Aronow on mon 5 mar 07
contemporaries
I stand corrected then, sorry.
> I sincerely doubt Picasso needed "the money", especially at the point
> in = his career he took on ceramics as a medium. He was already well-
> established = and didn't need the fame, either.
Lois, the statement means just the opposite. It was in response to Donald
musing or fretting that "stolen works of ceramics" receive little press
while those of "fine arts" make headlines. If you follow the money, there
are much larger sums in fine arts than there is in ceramics, so that's why
we don't hear of the theft of a $9000 pot, it's just not the same as the
theft of a $90 mil painting.
Kathy Forer
____________________________________________________________________________
__
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.
Lois Ruben Aronow on mon 5 mar 07
contemporaries
>But there are only a fraction of the number of artists
making a living compared to potters. It is easier to sell a $20.00
mug than it is a $10,000.00 painting.
But you would only need to sell a few paintings a year, as opposed to
hundreds upon hundreds of mugs. Personally, I think that selling 2000 mugs
a year is anything but "easy".
I realize, Lee, that you are in Japan, and your training is traditional and
functional. Learning to carry on a tradition is noble, of course. But
please have some respect for others who's work is sculptural, abstract or
just provocative.
> That's right. No need to look down on the lowly potter.
Actually, what we really need, as Philp Rawson points out, is to have
the art world pay attention to what potters do. We need more craft
in art, and more relevance to peoples everyday lives.
That said, the person I know who won the MacArthur is a glass blower. Isn't
that "craft"?
In Baltimore this year, one of the artists who won the Excellence in Craft
award was a glass guy, Matt Eskuche - a lampwork and torch guy, as opposed
to a furnace man. (www.blownglass.ws) He presented his work as
installation, rather than the usual home furnishings/functional. His was
representational of used and crushed plastic bottles - water bottles, soda
cans.... and presented, in one instance, in a tipped-over galvanized steel
trash can. These forms were so perfect that the plastic screw top to a
water bottle could fit perfectly on his glass forms. Some were spray
painted white, and he called it "white trash". This guy is fine-craft
trained - Penland, for one.
The reason I bring this up is because there was some "discussion" amongst
some of the glassblowers that what Matt did wasn't really "craft", and he
didn't belong in the show. The truth is, each of those hundreds of pieces
was made individually, by him, using traditional methods. A glass-blower
friend of mine told me his work was far and away technically excellent.
We can rehash this art vs. craft argument until the moon turns blue and
falls to the ground, but let's not. I feel it's far more important to
accept the fact that not all "craft" has to be functional - or it's
"function" can be decorative or provocative. Not all of us have to be
traditionalists and practice our craft in a traditional fashion.
I don't understand this seems to be a threat to craftspeople. New and
exciting - unorthodox, even - ways of presenting CRAFTSMANSHIP is what will
keep us materials-based artists around and growing.
Lee Love on tue 6 mar 07
contemporaries
On 3/6/07, Kathy Forer wrote:
> ceramics, so that's why we don't hear of the theft of a $9000 pot,
> it's just not the same as the theft of a $90 mil painting.
$9,000.00 pot is just peanuts. Sometime after I left,
there was some kind of buglery at Shimaoka's workshop. For 50
years, there were no locks on the buildings. When I went back for a
visit a few years back, all the buildings had new locks. There were
also new fences put up.
If a National Treasure Korean Yi or Sung Tenmoku tea
bowl were stolen, I assure you it would be in the press.
--
Lee in Mashiko, Japan
Minneapolis, Minnesota USA
http://potters.blogspot.com/
"To affect the quality of the day, that is the highest of arts." -
Henry David Thoreau
"Let the beauty we love be what we do." - Rumi
Lee Love on tue 6 mar 07
contemporaries
On 3/6/07, Lois Ruben Aronow wrote:
> With all due respect, not all pottery is functional. Creating sculptural
> and/or abstract work using clay as a medium is also legitimate, and this
> list is for and about people who use clay as a artistic medium.
> This is the craziest thing I have ever heard. Or perhaps it's just not
> translating well in email. Almost every craftsperson - in all disciplines -
> either finance their art through a day job and/or have a "working" partner.
But there are only a fraction of the number of artists
making a living compared to potters. It is easier to sell a $20.00
mug than it is a $10,000.00 painting.
I gave you a real life example at the
artist cooperative I lived in worked in. But then, I am talking
about Minnesota and not NYC.
> One should make the work they want to because they love making it. There is
> no other good reason, and there is no reason for anyone to look down their
> noses at any else's art, craft, talent, or ambition.
That's right. No need to look down on the lowly potter.
Actually, what we really need, as Philp Rawson points out, is to have
the art world pay attention to what potters do. We need more craft
in art, and more relevance to peoples everyday lives. No need to be
envious out the art world. Just have confidence in your own work.
-- Lee in Mashiko, Japan
Minneapolis, Minnesota USA
http://potters.blogspot.com/
"To affect the quality of the day, that is the highest of arts." -
Henry David Thoreau
"Let the beauty we love be what we do." - Rumi
Lee Love on tue 6 mar 07
contemporaries
On 3/6/07, Lee Love wrote:
> I know the reality of the lives of most artists. Nothing to
> envy. There is no separation of art and craft here in Japan. A fe
> Potters at the top are treated like celebrities and make big bucks...
oops! Didn't finish this.
...There are draw backs to pottery demanding high prices.
But the grass is always greener on the other side...
--
Lee in Mashiko, Japan
Minneapolis, Minnesota USA
http://potters.blogspot.com/
"To affect the quality of the day, that is the highest of arts." -
Henry David Thoreau
"Let the beauty we love be what we do." - Rumi
Lee Love on tue 6 mar 07
contemporaries
On 3/6/07, Lois Ruben Aronow wrote:
> But you would only need to sell a few paintings a year, as opposed to
> hundreds upon hundreds of mugs. Personally, I think that selling 2000 mugs
> a year is anything but "easy".
Again, no need to be jealous of the very few artists
actuallymaking a living from their work. It is like thinking
basketball players are all rich, when the fact of the matter is that
only a very, very, very, very small fraction of them make a living at
the game, let alone making big bucks.
You don't need to match $$$ with a famous artist to make a good
working class living. But folks are envious of the very few painters
getting hundreds of thousands of dollars for their work. They are
jealous of their celebrity. I don't understand it. I'd recommend
taking up painting if it bugs you.
Artists can make their version of the $20.00 mug. When I
participated in the art crawls at NCC, I was always a top seller. I
never heard of a single walk in purchase of a painting that cost over
the price of my pots. But the smart ones started looking at the
craftsmen who actually sell their work and they started making the
equivalent of a mug: posters, cards, t-shirts, refrigerator art.
Those folks started selling things and even sold larger things later,
because they got their little $5..00 missionary into someone's heart.
Woodblock prints is another way to make art affordable to
your average person. I intend to explore this with prints on pottery
themes.
> I realize, Lee, that you are in Japan, and your training is traditional and
> functional. Learning to carry on a tradition is noble, of course.
I realize you live in NY (I tell folks, they really need to get
out of Tokyo, if they want to see Japan. Tokyo has more in common
with NYC than the rest of the country), but things are different
elsewhere. In the Heartland and the West coast the values are
different. People actually use pottery, there is a large educated
community on the West coast who enjoy finely made potter. In the
Upper MidWest, there is as equally strong community of pottery
connoisseurs due, in a large part, to the work of Warren MacKenzie.
(Hey, I really like Garth Clark's essay in the current issue of
Studio Potter! He is a person of character!)
> That said, the person I know who won the MacArthur is a glass blower. Isn't
> that "craft"?
Hey, argue with those folks. I know painters and sculptors
I would consider craftsmen. I believe in a broad interpretation of
the term.
> I don't understand this seems to be a threat to craftspeople.
That's my point exactly. Thank you! Hey! I married an
artist. She has learned the craft of woodblock prints here in Japan.
I know the reality of the lives of most artists. Nothing to
envy. There is no separation of art and craft here in Japan. A fe
Potters at the top are treated like celebrities and make big bucks.
--
Lee in Mashiko, Japan
Minneapolis, Minnesota USA
http://potters.blogspot.com/
"To affect the quality of the day, that is the highest of arts." -
Henry David Thoreau
"Let the beauty we love be what we do." - Rumi
Chuck Wagoner on fri 18 may 07
contemporaries
Pottery forms are more than useful objects. They are symbolic forms. I
believe pottery has become over time a unique type of sculpture with an
underpinning of utility.
Charles Todd Wagoner
North Vermillion Jr./Sr. High School Visual Art Dept.
Billie Creek Village Potter, Rockville, IN
Charter Member "Bald Headed Potters of America"
You saw BHPA show if you went on the bus tour at NCECA in Indy, at the Dean
Johnson Gallery.
| |
|
