Ceramic Semantics
Richard Gralnik
----------------------------Original message----------------------------
At 08:13 AM 4/4/97 EST, someone on clayart wrote:
>----------------------------Original message----------------------------
>I do know that based on his work that is featured in Daphne Carnegie's book
>Tin Glazed Earthenware, he is my favorite majolica painter. I loved his
>layered methods and painterly work.
>
Is anyone else irritated by the invented vocabulary being used to describe
ceramic art?
What the hell is a "painterly"? It isn't in the Oxford English Dictionary.
And it's bad grammar.
Another word that I saw in a CM article recently was "maker". The maker
did this. The makers did that. Maker? Oh, please. "One who makes".
Talk about indefinite and/or pretentious. What's wrong with "potter"?
Or "sculptor"? And "ceramist" sounds like a person you'd find in a
laboratory.
If ceramics is so determined to be seen as a fine art and taken seriously
by the art world "in crowd" - assuming that's a worthwhile aspiration - then
the in crowd will need to be brought up to our level. Making up words and
taking on airs isn't going to do it. If anything it sounds absurd.
If the only reason someone works in clay is so they can paint on it then
why not just paint on a canvas, a board or a piece of sheet metal? Why
introduce the trouble, uncertainty, time, expense and fragility of clay?
Why should a good pot be embarassed to be called "a good pot"? Or a potter
to be called a "potter"?
Richard
Carol Jackaway
----------------------------Original message----------------------------
Hi Richard,
I agree with your comment about the use of words to describe our ceramic
art. But I am one of those people who "paint" with underglaze on pottery.
Dec. issue up front section. I do it to combine my two favorite things coil
built pottery (3D) forms, and painting. You should not dismiss what you do
not understand because there is room for all of us to create in this world.
Carol
Ken Ford
----------------------------Original message----------------------------
Hi folks,
Couldn't help but wonder, how do other people feel about Richard's
comments about pretentious language in describing art, especially clay
works ? All the words mentioned have been in use for some time! Hardly just
invented for the article that was so offensive. Not everyone who uses clay
to make things/art regards themselves as "potters" or the work they make as
"pots"
The word "ceramist" I find to be an absolutely beautiful word that
has been derived in the last few years to replace "ceramicist", a tongue
full for any one. Ins't it fantastic how language is capable of being fluid
and in touch with what is happening in the world.
But what really bugged me about Richard's comments was the
insinuation that if one is not content with making "a good pot" one should
stick to some other medium, Bravo! for single minded attitudes, what does
the word "fascist" do for you.
If clay is to be regarded as a medium for "serious" art lets
encourage a definitive language that can be encompassed by the art world at
large.
Ken Ford (Clay Worker)
,
Crystal Larson
----------------------------Original message----------------------------
In a message dated 97-04-07 01:25:32 EDT, you write:
<< Is anyone else irritated by the invented vocabulary being used to describe
ceramic art? What the hell is a "painterly"? It isn't in the Oxford
English Dictionary. And it's bad grammar.>>
No, not really, because I completely understand what was being said. "Bad
grammar"? Perhaps, but there are a lot of college art teachers that use the
term. I think you are having a problem with the term because you have not
grasp the concept behind the statement. Take a couple of college courses in
Art History or take a couple of oil / acrylic / watercolor classes and then
you would understand the word "Painterly" refers to a type of painting style
- usually they are not photo-realistic in nature.
<< If the only reason someone works in clay is so they can paint on it then
why not just paint on a canvas, a board or a piece of sheet metal? Why
introduce the trouble, uncertainty, time, expense and fragility of clay?>>
Because they have the right to explore their chosen media in any direction
they wish, just the same as you do.
<<Why should a good pot be embarassed to be called "a good pot"? Or a
potter
to be called a "potter"?>>
Does it really matter what you call yourself? The only thing that really
matters is that you give an honest effort to do your best. Who cares what
you call yourself or name your creations. They are a reflection of you.
Your time, your skill, your effort in trying to achieve whatever form you
hold dear, your hard work or lack of it. If someone wants to give something
a name, so what? It is their pot, they can call it whatever they want. Let
the kids explore, take joy in the journey and have some fun in the learning.
Will Rogers said it best, "If you want to be successful, it's just this
simple: Know what you're doing. Love what you're doing. And believe in what
you're doing."
Crystal Larson
woos...@aol.com
Karl David Knudson
----------------------------Original message----------------------------
On Mon, 7 Apr 1997, Richard Gralnik wrote:
> Is anyone else irritated by the invented vocabulary being used to describe
> ceramic art?
Yes and no. Invented vocabulary is a good thing when describing processes
and other things where non-invented vocabulary is either not accurate or
unbelievably complicated. Wouldn't it be rather difficult to make a pin
for the "Electric Transmission of Binary Signals Arranged into Groupings
Symbolizing Various Discourses Regarding the Creation, Evaluation, and
Dissemination of Objects Bases on Alumno-Sillicates Breakfast." On the
other hand I have a very nice pin for the Clayart Breakfast. Thanks
again.
> What the hell is a "painterly"?
It's not "a painterly" used properly it would be "painterly" meaning in
the style of a painter or similar to the technique that a painter or
painting would employ.
> If ceramics is so determined to be seen as a fine art and taken seriously
> by the art world "in crowd" - assuming that's a worthwhile aspiration - then
> the in crowd will need to be brought up to our level. Making up words and
> taking on airs isn't going to do it. If anything it sounds absurd.
Actually I think that the general art public has th e opposite view of
ceramics in general and that rather than bringing the in croud up to our
level we clay folk are seen as needing to be brought up to the in croud's
level. Verbiage (Using excessive and elaborate words) is used in part to
add this value. The real problem is that there seems to be definite
finite limits on the $$$ that ceramics can fetch. This is why a well
crafted teapot intricately carved taking tens if not hundreds of hours to
create (See Elaine Coleman's work for instance) will have a price tag of
a few thousand dollars, where as a large painting which may have been
painted in 45 minutes using the "thrown fruit technique" can sell for
hundreds of thousands of dollars. Go figure.
> If the only reason someone works in clay is so they can paint on it then
> why not just paint on a canvas, a board or a piece of sheet metal? Why
> introduce the trouble, uncertainty, time, expense and fragility of clay?
Probably because setting limits on artists regarding what techniques are
appropriate for certian media would be vastly detrimental to the art.
> Why should a good pot be embarassed to be called "a good pot"? Or a potter
> to be called a "potter"?
One shouldn't be. Unfortuantely as I mentioned before a "good pot" made
by a "good potter" does not inspire the $$$ that a "vessel" made by a
"ceramic artist" does.
The slot machines are still ringing in my ears,
Karl in Eugene.
Samantha Tomich
----------------------------Original message----------------------------
On Painterly Style and Our Constantly Evolving Language
from Living With Art's glossary (McCarter & Gilbert)- "painterly:
descriptive of paintings in which forms are defined principally by color
areas, rather than by lines or edges"
from Art History's glossary (Stokstad), "painterly: A painting, or style
of painting, that emphasizes the techniques and surface effects of
brushwork"
The word painterly is evolving just like the rest of human language. I
think its original usage was by art historians, and I presume that's the
more conventional meaning as used in the examples I have listed later in
this e-mail from Art Past, Art Present. But, I believe, contemporary
usage and the more common, looser definition is best described by this
passage of Art History (by Marilyn Stokstad)from p. 29: "Linear
describes the style in which an artist uses line as the primary means
of definition. When shadows and shading of modeling and hightlights
dominate, the style may be called painterly. Architecture and sculpture
may be linear or painterly."
Even sculpture with NO color can be painterly! It's a way of working
and seeing and communicating that's loose, fluid, gestural like paint
flowing off the brush uninhibited. Painterly is a word used to imply a
contrast with tight, detailed, intricate work; kind of like organic vs.
inorganic but with a different flavor.
Why should it matter if the word isn't conventionally used to describe
ceramics? Richard Zakin in Electric Kiln Ceramics refers to lots of
ceramic techniques and materials as WYSIWYG! Uh, Oh! wrong topic.
Bad...Bad...
True, flaunting the use of niche vocabulary is snobbery, but no harm was
intended I'm sure by Zakin or the Clayartist who spoke of painterly
majolica work. If it works to communicate what you see, feel and think
and gets this across to the person(s) you are conversing with why not
use it? It is just an analogy that you may not have understood because
of the specific use of the word from a context you may not have been
familiar. So, here's some more use of the word in context.
from Art Past, Art Present's glossary (Wilkins, Schultz, and Linduff)-
"painterly: in painting, the technique of using large brushstrokes and
flecks of paint to define form; see figs. 358,405"
from that text (p. 326) near figure 358, which is a detail shot of
Titian's Madonna of the Pesaro Family: "The detail from Titian's Pesaro
Madonna, although substantially reduced in size, reveals the new
suggestive, painterly style pioneered in Venice during the first years
of the sixteenth century... The developement of a new style and
technique in oil painting began with Giorgione, who softened his forms
and blurred edges... Titian, Giorgines's pupil and friend, went further
to develope a style using bold, large strokes that had a profound impact
not only on Venetian painters but on many other artists in later
centuries, including Rubens and Velazquez. Titian's lively, painterly
brushstrokes are consistant with his interest in movement and
asymmetrical compositions"
The author then contrasts the painting with Grunewald's Mystical Navity
with Musical Angels, which "demonstrates hidden brushstrokes, and
emphasis on precise details", and also with Titian's later work
including the Rape of Europa, where is says," Later in Titian's life his
brushstrokes became even more bold, and he used large, thick strokes
(impasto), often of pure color, to define form."
from the same text, on Frans Hals painting Banquet of the Officers of
the Civic Guard of St. George, it says," The suggestion of movement is
enhanced by the diagonals in the composition, by repeated strokes of
strong color, and by the use of bold diagonal brushstrokes."
Looking at the examples, I went, HUH? They look sorta the same
stylisticly to me, but then I noticed that, yea, the titian painting
isn't as tightly rendered. So what? His later work was more loosely
rendered... hmmm. It seems really kooky, but did everyone do tight
stuff until then. It seems crazy to me everyone would do just one kind
of style. That couldn't be true. But, now I'm thinking... Van Gogh
wasn't accepted because of the paint flying all over the place. That
seems like just another way of doing things to me. If you want to fling
paint - go ahead, right? Well, lucky we live in this century then.
Telling someone how to paint or not to paint on ceramics is kinda like
telling Van Gogh he should quit, that's not how we do it, just go be a
real painter. Just an example.
The definitions of drawing and painting are getting looser as well, and
you can draw with paint and paint with drawing materials... But you
don't have to use paint to make a painterly drawing. And so on. It's
confusing, but it's all about communicating what we are doing. With
techniques being infinite and materials there for the choosing it's
hard to know what to call what we do & our minds categorize to try and
describe verbally what we see. A lot of new things are going on in
ceramics, so a lot of new things will be said in describing what is
going on. I'm not a traditional potter, I want to make pots, sure,
but I want to combine it all, all the techniques, all the materials, I
want to explore forever creating and combining and throwing in new
curves, potting, sculpting, imagining, working, dreaming, playing, being
an artist, being me, calling it painterly or poop. No limits to where I
can go or what I can do or create. That's what I have to do. That's
why I AM an artist. I am. Sam I am, green eggs...
Later dude, rambling on.... Samantha Tomich
Sam I am, green eggs... You don't have to try them.
Vince Pitelka
----------------------------Original message----------------------------
Richard -
Methinks you are over-reacting a bit???
>What the hell is a "painterly"? It isn't in the Oxford English Dictionary.
>And it's bad grammar.
"Painterly" is a very common word in art, and refers to the style of
painting where the action of the brush is very evident in the way the paint
is deposited. The opposite would be a clean "linear" style, where the
action of the painter and the brush is concealed.
>Another word that I saw in a CM article recently was "maker". The maker
>did this. The makers did that. Maker? Oh, please. "One who makes".
>Talk about indefinite and/or pretentious. What's wrong with "potter"?
>Or "sculptor"? And "ceramist" sounds like a person you'd find in a
>laboratory.
Again, what's the big deal??? Refering to someone who makes something as
the "maker" is a very old tradition, and there is nothing pretentious or
psuedo-intellectual about it. I honestly do not know what you are upset
about here?
>If ceramics is so determined to be seen as a fine art and taken seriously
>by the art world "in crowd" - assuming that's a worthwhile aspiration - then
>the in crowd will need to be brought up to our level. Making up words and
>taking on airs isn't going to do it. If anything it sounds absurd.
If you think that the above constitutes "making up words and putting on
airs" then you ain't seen nothing. There IS a tremendous amount of
pretentious posturing in writings about fine art today, and a good part of
it is bullshit. But some of it is elegant and very informative. You can
sort it out for youself. This wasn't really worth venting about, was it??
There is nothing pretentious or phony about "painterly," or "maker," or
"ceramist." Lighten up.
- Vince
Vince Pitelka - vpit...@DeKalb.net
Phone - home 615/597-5376, work 615/597-6801
Appalachian Center for Crafts
1560 Craft Center Drive, Smithville TN 37166
Carol Jackaway
----------------------------Original message----------------------------
Hi Ken,
I myself immediately e-mailed Richard about his comments. I too am not
crazy about the psychobabble that is used often to explain a piece. But I
was taken aback by the problem he had with painting on clay. I am a
handbuilder that makes functional ceramic art and yes I paint under sea
scenes on them. I combine my two favorite art forms 3-D forms and painting.
It brings me pleasure and I am able to make a living. What is so bad about
that! A good pot does not need to be wheel thrown and a "runny" glaze. Good
pots come in many shapes and sizes and surface treatments.
There is room for every ones creative flow. We all find some process,
surface treatments, or forms questionable. I have a problem with taking a tup
cup and saucer, slicing it up and putting it back together wrong. But again
this is the way some one chooses to create, give everyone room to grow and
we'll all be happy.
CERAMIC
ARTIST
CoilLady
clay...@aol.com
----------------------------Original message----------------------------
> Is anyone else irritated by the invented vocabulary being used to describe
>> ceramic art?
I'm not particularly concerned about semantics that other people use to describe
ceramics in general or my work in particular, for that matter. I am, however,
I also don't/try not to think of other peoples work in terms of "good" or "bad"
chord with something in me. I recognize that some work is inventive, technicall
own personal directions, process, and expressions, whether I like or not. Cla
me.
I never been very good at "artspeak", (which is perhaps how this thread got star
to. Who am I to judge. All language was invented at some point anyway.
No, I don't really get worked up about any of this. Nor about the "art verses c
be accountable for my words, my work, my actions. I have gained any enormous am
time and energy to apply to my work and interests. Clayphil
Patrick & Lynn Hilferty
----------------------------Original message----------------------------
At 4:14 AM -0700 4/10/97, Karl David Knudson wrote:
>----------------------------Original message----------------------------
>Two Questions:
>
>Does the value of a piece of ceramic art increase as its function
>decreases?
How about:
"The monetary value of a ceramic object increases in porportion to its
cachet?" No, wait, that's not it. Maybe the proper way to phrase this is,
"The monetary value of a ceramic object increases in porportion to its
perceived cachet." By the way, just because something is perceived doesn't
mean it's not real.
>WHY?
Because that's the way people work. Artist's fortunes can be as arbitrary
as the times they live in.
>By function I am refering to utility and purpose, not a piece that can
>function as a door stop or an eyesore for instance.
You're not trying to put down doorstops and eyesores, are you? I would
certainly hope not. Utility and purpose be ascribed to to anything based on
the artist's intention. But then, we've been down this road before. One can
suspect one's own intentions: for example. I once had the suspicion that
the sole purpose of my old work was to explode into pieces whenever they
were shipped by UPS, but that's a different story...
>The other Karl in Eugene.
Patrick
**************************************************
Patrick Hilferty
Belmont, CA 94002
E-Mail: phil...@earthlink.net
Web Page: http://home.earthlink.net/~philferty/
**************************************************
Karl David Knudson
----------------------------Original message----------------------------
Sorry I havn't had time to keep up with my own thread.
On Fri, 11 Apr 1997, Dannon Rhudy wrote:
> No, the VALUE does not increase or decrease dependant upon
> function. However, the PRICE may be related to function/utility.
> And sometimes function/utility may be related to the price.
Is there a difference in our society? Doesn't PRICE reflect that VALUE,
or is the price as Dave Hickey said, a bet as to what the value of the
piece might be?
Does VALUE have any intrinsic worth beyond the individual?
The other Karl
kknu...@gladstone.uoregon.edu
Sherry mcDonald Stewart
----------------------------Original message----------------------------
Fickle fickle people, that seems to be what it boils down to. I had my
work in a cooperative gallery, and I watched a lovely porcelain bowl
being picked up by almost everyone who came in to the gallery. I changed
my price on it, to see how price affected a persons decision about it. I
think if a person is confident about what they think is quality, they
will pay the price, and the others, are just learning, and are fickle,
needing something else to inform them. I had work on the walls of this
gallery selling for 35.00 that never sold, but has been in 6 National
shows! And published! It was on the wall first! Lack of vision, thats
all! You, as an artist decide what to charge, and you need to go with
your instincts, and make some mistakes, too!
Hiro Matsusaki
----------------------------Original message----------------------------
Just my two bits worth. My experiece mirrors the comments by Sherry mcDonald
Stewart who wrote on 97-04-16 08:58:58 EDT: <Fickle,fickle people, that seems
to be what it boils down to. I had my work in a cooperative gallery, and I
selling for $35.00 that never sold...You, as an artist ... ...make some
mistakes, too.>
My jewel pottery pieces used to be like $3.50 and not $35, the teapot maybe
$40 at most. So my remarks are skewed to the lower end. Logically, the entire
comments by Sherry make eminent sense, if we assume or suppose that the
market is perfect, or near so and self-regulating. Unfortunately, this belief
is a widespread myth, which haunts us all. In this way of thinking, the
quality of the pot is rewarded, proportionally, by the price it can command
in the market. It ain't always so. But, somehow we tacitly agree to this
notion. And I have used the idea with pride. I was so happy when a pot sold
at a higher price than I expected. But it ain't so, and I knew it. I dispute
this sacrosanct notion of the free market. Why?
Look at all the crappy pots that sell at inflated prices. Haven't we seen
enough? The consumer does not have the perfect knowledge, let alone the good
taste. That's why. You may call the consumer fickle, and you are darn right.
But there are more fundamental reasons why the market economy does not
function the way it should. But that is beyond the scope of this post. The
market is not free.
Just think about the price/quality split. No logical order, or hierarchical
structure in the market. Even the classy hotels supposedly ranked by so many
stars vary in quality/service and price. The pots? So numerous in number?
Forget it. That's the reality we must face. I told you so about the teabowls.
Didn't I? A long time ago? Several hundred thousand bucks for a lousy one
with no function to us at all?
The art and $$$ do not mix well. Pricing our pots by production costs, or the
perceived competition, is a folly. It pleases the consumer, or the reseller,
if you are a good potter. That is about all I can say. The corollary to this
notion? Nothing wrong to sell above or below the said "market price", if you
can get away with it, or can still survive. The market is inherently chaotic.
HM
Clayphil
----------------------------Original message----------------------------
In article <970417193318...@emout09.mail.aol.com>, Hiro Matsusaki
<Karat...@aol.com> writes:
>Sherry mcDonald
>Stewart who wrote on 97-04-16 08:58:58 EDT: <Fickle,fickle people, that
seems
>to be what it boils down to. I had my work in a cooperative gallery, and
I
>watched a lovely porcelain pot... ... I had work on the walls of this
gallery
>selling for $35.00 that never sold...You, as an artist ... ...make some
>mistakes, too.>
I'm throwing in my .02 worth. I have struggled with this whole $$$ verses
Art thing for a long time and continue to struggle prior to every show or
order i send out. But to be honest what I fear most is underpricing my
pottery. And, indeed, my work tends toward the pricey not the cheap side.
I guess this price range is based on a few observations I have made while
selling pots:
I don't think the public is fickle. But it isn't very well informed about
what art/craft is, either. In fact, it is an even more complex issue. A
segment of "the Public" doesn't value artwork at all. A segment wants it
at the cheapest price. A segment is purely impulse( I like it, I want
it!). A segment goes by a percieved value phenomenon (If it's cheap, it
must not be very good. If it's pricey, it must be good). AND a segment
of the public really does appreciate art/craft and is willing to pay for
it. I think the willingness to pay a fair and substantial price is a way
of paying tribute to the work. So, what segment of the population am I
making art for??? If I underprice it, does that undervalue my own work,
your work, all work? I think it does! Whenever I have "haggled" with
someone and lowered my price I have felt guilty that I have depreciated
myself, my work, and offended the art Gods. Do I have a responsibility to
educate at least some people in "the public" about the value of art in
our society? Yes, I do. And I have a responsibility and desire, to myself
and my family to make a living and to , if you will, the art God, to
continue to make art. And there are those folks out there that truely
appreciate fine quality artwork but simply can't afford it (I count myself
in that number!). It is to those people , in particular, that cause me so
much angst! Were it not for them and afew other "gray" areas in our
society, it would be easy to pick a segement of the population to target
your work for and develop an appropriate price list.
So I worry about underpricing my work as much as making the best effort I
can to develop my work. I try to strike a balance between art and
business, because of my practical side. I also know that outrageously
overpriced work DOES NOT sell at all. I have recognized that not every
store, gallery, or fair is the correct venue for my work. I have worked
at finding the right market for my work. Lastly, I have to say that
pricing my work based on what I see as the merit of the piece verses
production costs has served me pretty well. Hope this stokes the fire a
bit. Phil in Chicago
Sherry mcDonald Stewart
----------------------------Original message----------------------------
My point was that people are fickle, because they are uninformed! They
don't know what they like, because they lack real experience, because
they do not participate, they only become spectators, and therefore have
no real way of judging what quality is. therefore, you cannot price your
ware or art based on what they understand, but what you know to be true
of your work, and yes, you have to be a tough self critic, and learn to
be objective. That was my point, for what it is worth. Sherry
Eleanora Eden
----------------------------Original message----------------------------
Hi All,
My stuff is also pricy but I have GREAT seconds and odds-and-ends sales so
that neighbors and repeat customers can come if they wish to and get stuff
at reasonable or terrific prices. And if somebody comes into my booth and
opines at the prices I just whip out a studio sale leaflet and either they
are delighted or at least silenced.
Eleanora
Eleanora Eden 802 869-2003
Paradise Hill
Bellows Falls, VT 05101 ed...@maple.sover.net
[the address f...@world.std.com is temporary. My mailbox at
ed...@maple.sover.net still works -- do not change address books]
Sherry mcDonald Stewart
----------------------------Original message----------------------------
You know, I was just reading back over some messages, and it occurred to
me that an experiment (my way of learning all things) to find out what
works would be worth, might be an auction. Of course the minimum bidding
would be set. A small co-op gallery could try it out, or maybe a better
test would be an auction at NCECA, where the people bidding would be
peers who have the best knowledge of worth, I'd think. It might be a
great educational experience for all. The piece could have a price on
the bottom that the person would have asked. In this way, people could
determine if they were over or under pricing, or if they got a fair
price. It could be a sort of open discussion afterwards about what
worked and what didn't. There is so much controversey about this
subject( "inquiring minds want to know!") Maybe that is a way to find
out. Clayart could sponsor it, and some proceeds could go to pay for a
party, which is also being considered! Two birds with one stone? Sher