The MFA conundrum...long
Jonathan Kaplan
I have, perhaps, a slightly jaded opinion of the entire grad
school/MFA thread that has been posted on the list, and hey, no better time
then a Sunday afternoon to soap box this one. Far be it from me to show any
modesty at all when it comes to some issues that still, to this day, get me
going....
So I've got the BFA (RISD 1973) and the MFA(Southern Illinois/Edwardsville 1975)
and I have taught at junior colleges, community colleges, and in my own studio.
I have also been a producing studio potter since 1976, as I am sure many on
the list are familiar with. So I have been on both sides of the fence and
have,IMHO, been there, seen it, done it, got the T shirt.
There is still quite a schism between what I would refer to as "academic
clay," and "clay in the real world." Quite frankly, this diatribe has not
changed one bit since I graduated from school. While there may have been
some small changes in attitudes or an inclusion or two of practical classes
in a ceramics curriculum eg business related etc., a global overview, again
IMHO, is that college clay curriculums are focused heavily into defining an
artistc statement or vision regarding one's own art and trying vainly to
secure a teaching job afterwards, or struggling to make claywork while
holding down 3 part time jobs. Or opening a pottery studio and getting out
there in the trenches doing art fairs, galleries, maybe a retail store cum
studio, whatever, and dealing with all the injustice that the real world
dishes out to producing artists. The point being that in some cases, I may
regard my MFA as worthless in the real world. Looks good on paper and has
enabled me to secure an adjunct position at Colorado Mountain College here
in Steamboat easier than without. I often joke that what I learned in grad
school was how to drive a fork lift truck and to stick weld and use a oxy
acetelyne torch. Joking aside, grad shcool was a very valuable expereince
for me. I learned new things, was exposed to people and ideas that were
very different and some very interesting and mediocre or worthless also.
But I had time and no financial encumbrances. Full assistantship, etc. But
I really wanted to teach, and in 1975 (at the wee age of 25), even with my
MFA and two feature publications in CM, a host of competative exhibitions,
I could not secure anything but an unpaid artist in residence position for
one year at Millersville State College (now Millersville University) in
Pennsylvania. I did not have any guidance on how to put a portfolio
together, write a resume, and I also acknowledege that I did not graduate
from a school that at that time, had a faculty that was part of the "old
boy's network" in terms of helping their graduates get a job. Sure I got
great references, but no support. And yes, I am sure that has changed at
this time. Blame it on retrenchment, not real teaching experience, what
ever. The MFA program in ceramics that I enrolled in provided no practical
skills for making a living in the real world.
I would also venture that there are still programs now that function in
very much the same way. What are ya gonna do when you get out?? Hey, I'll
go for the MFA and delay that decision for another 2 years, and that might
be something to think about in a committment-less society. Many programs
focus on developing vision and vocabulary as ceramic artists which is,
IMHO, both a necessity and a requirement as artists. But practical skills
for the real world are left behind. Are there any programs that teach
ceramic design skills or industrial design skills with plaster and mold
making, jiggers, presses, etc., so that graduates of that MFA program can
go work in industry or use these skills in their own studios to support
themselves with their learned skills? I know of only two such programs,
and I sure would be honored to learn of others out there that provide
exposure to industrial design skills, business and marketing programs in
conjunction with nuturing artistic vision and vocabulary. What do you do
with your MFA is a question that I hope to address as a participant in Joe
Zeller's Arts and Industry panel at NCECA next month. And does it not seem
that these issues are ones that have always been here?
As a studio potter for more years than I care to remember, most of what I
learned was on the job training. One could argue that even with accounting
skills, business managment skills, etc., most of what you learn is indeed
on the job. And I would never trade all those years for anything, in
retrospect. So the issue of being self taught vs. school taught might be
moot, in that you can learn all you need to by doing. True to a point. But
after reading and re-reading Richard Burketts last post, I would agree with
some of what he said.
I'll put my neck out here......
Most production potters I have encountered over these many years to always
be appologetic for what they are making, year after year, the same stuff,
sure it gets better and better, but in most cases, the work is trite,
boring, and it is just a job. And appologetic because it is viewed as not
high art in acaemic clay circles. And yes, it is a living, and for me and
many of my colleagues, a good one, but a hell of alot of work and struggle.
It does not make it any better or any worse then making ceramic
art/sculpture in a non-production environment. I also know many potters
working in production studios making production pots that do indeed come
from the heart, are not appologetic for their work, and are pushing the
edge of production work...Kathy Erteman, Steven Hill, Loren Lukens, etc....
I could go on and perhaps even include myself, unabashedly, but ...The
point being that by its nature, production pottery is hard work,
repetative, stale...add some more here, but really the question should be
"am I happy making this work? If the answer is "yes," I'll close this post
and go skiing now. If the answer is "no," change the work and do more, do
better, push it in whatever direction makes you satisfied and
un-appologetic. Hey, it may just be pitchers and mugs, but they are my
pitchers and mugs, and I make them from the heart and these are indeed the
best products of my endeavors at this time and place. Case closed. But
wait......its not over......
We are a community of self professed critics and often assert that we have
the ceramic vision that will change the world.."Potters Creates New
Mug!....Political Fabric of the Western World Now Altered!...Story and
Pictures and 5 and 11.
Academic clay, IMHO, professes that with these skills taught and absorbed
by our graduating classs, you can go out there and indeed, make that mug,
that art, that sculpture. Chris Staley's eloquent article in the last CM
should serve as some reference point in this conundrum. The skills and
knowledge gleaned from a good grad program are very worthwhile. But if you
are independantly wealthy, have good connections, or whatever, you may not
need to worry avbout making a living. I do take issue with Richard's
statement...... "making pottery as an art requires a higher engagement in
one's pursuits than just skilled reptition and mimicry." The question is
how you engage it. What I have always brought to my production work is a
higher engagement (and perhaps thats whay I can't sell it!!) and I can site
many who do exactly the same. Some are products of school programs and
others are self taught. And yes, there are great quantities or poorly
executed and equally as poorly thought out work, huge amounts of it as well
all well know. But I will defend production work, as I know it and define
it, strongly because it too demands an aesthetic that is equally as
demanding as making ceramic art. ( I am using my terminology very loosly
here, so please don't post me that what is art and what is not art or what
is craft and what is not etc.) But why there is such mediocre production
work could be attributed to the lack of design education in the MFA
programs. Reference a quote from an article that was written about me in
last years CM..."whether the work is thrown, jiggered, pressed, or
cast...it most be DESIGNED first." Most of what I see out there in stores,
art fairs, may be competantly made, but pooly designed, or not designed at
all. And this I fault the academic clay system. Vision, vocabulary,
artistic intent and realization, etc. all are fine. But hey, where is the
BEEF..where is the DESIGN??? Most of the potters I know are good potters,
hardworking, directed with a vision, but very poor designers.
I am willing to assert that very few potters/ceramic artists/clayworkers
(pick one that suits) could solve some rudimentary clay design
problems....for example.....
1. For manufacture by casting, design a 6 piece place setting that consists
of 3 sizes of plates all that nestle and are in ascending/descendning rim
and foot diameters, include a cup and saucer that index together as well as
a soup bowl that can also index into the saucer. Provide prototypes in both
clay and plaster, as well as block and case molds for each. Design these
for maximum load density in a standard studio size 14 sided electric kiln,
10 cubic feet in stacking capacity.
2. For handthrowing, design a series of twelve bowls that inset into each
other with a difference of 1/2 inch of rim diameters but have the same
height. How would you take your hand made pieces and convert them to jigger
jolley manufacture?
3. Design a glaze that fits the following criteria:
cone 06-06 terra cotta body, glossy surface that contains no added barium as
a flux, and has a certain molecular equiv. of boron so that with an addition
of ? amount of zinc, can produce a varigated "reative" surface with an
addition of rutile or titanium dioxide.
I could go on, but as I also provoke my students to design a good mug, many
of them are stumped in that they can't even begin to verbalize the
necessary vocabulary to talk about what even makes a good mug. A short
history of linear thinking confronting conceptual thinking.
Richard states that MS Davis mentioned...'Students should have the craft
skills necessary to support their art" But they don't, because the skills
necessary to do this whether they be.... mold making, throwing skills,
etc., are not provided. They are deemed less worthy or our attention and
less worthy of the instructors time or knowledge to present them. We can
sit in critique after critique stoked with caffine and wax eubulently about
our work and its inspirations on a personal as well as global/societal
context and site literary reference after reference that supports or case,
but after all this verbal masturbation is spent, what are ya gonna do with
it?
And yes, I was fortunate in that without exposure to clay in high school
and then in college on my own pursuit, I would not be working in clay
today. Point well taken. However, we need to radically overhaul and tweak
the system and never ever settle for the satus quo or for anything
mediocre. What are we doing putting out more professed pottery teachers
that can't get jobs teaching or who are unwilling to question the very
basic tenents of the system and have no design background? Industral design
isn't just for industry anymore. Its for us as potters and clayworkers and
ceramic artists. And yes, a good education may make it more likely to
happen, but does not necessarily insure that it will. And how we define
what indeed constitutes an education in the ceramic arts is basic for any
further discussion.
Jonathan
Jonathan Kaplan
http://www.craftweb.com/org/jkaplan/cdg.shtml
(aka "Scooter)
jona...@csn.net
Ceramic Design Group Voice: 303-879-9139
POB 775112 FAXmodem: same
Steamboat Springs, Colorado 80477, USA CALL before faxing
"They never come up into the hills anymore!!"
Richard Burkett
Nice post, Jonathan. Several of your points should be carefully considered by
all of us. I think we're probably more in agreement than not.
Probably the most disturbing trend in pottery is the tendency toward the
"apologetic potter." Such a stance only lessens the chance of pottery being
an equal partner in the arts. It's time for potters to stand up for
themselves. Jonathan lists several who are not apologetic for their work and
I would venture that these potters would be successful school or no school.
They have the drive, intellect, and creative spirit to make art. I applaud
any potter or artist who is willing to stand up for what they do, AND is
doing the work to support this stance.
I finally read Chris Staley's article in CM after writing my last post. He
makes some good points. I have to argue with a few things, especially that
ceramists are making second-rate sculpture in a sheltered environment. Yes,
some are making mediocre work, but there's a lot of good work being done,
too, that can hold its own sculpturally with other media. Is making
second-rate pottery in a sheltered art environment any better? There's a lot
of that going on, too. Work should be judged on its merits. Shouldn't
ceramics just be considered part of the larger art world - and then let's get
on with life? (AND I don't want to get into the pointless
"is it art or craft" argument art all!)
I didn't mean to say that making functional pottery, by its very nature, is
repetive and stale. Sure, making pottery is hard work that involves
repetition, but it can be alive and vibrant. It depends on the approach of
the potter: if the potter maintains playful and inventive attitude the chance
of it growing stale is considerably less. This requires a mind that is open
to ALL possibilities. Work in sculpture, or any other art media, can open up
options that a more narrowly focused "I only do functional pottery" potter
won't see. I would argue that working outside functional pottery will help
one make better functional pottery upon one's return to that more restrictive
genre. Functional pottery is the most difficult art in the pottery family
just because one has to work within so many restraints. This doesn't make it
any less a worthy art form, just more difficult to do well.
Yes, there are grad programs which focus only on talk, not work. There are
also other good programs out there which provide a better balance. To condemn
all university education as bad because of a few is not fair or logical. What
about those students who choose to go to largely theoretical schools or
schools with mediocre programs? Isn't it their choice? Or their folly for not
checking first? Or their laziness for not making the most of their time and
finding the resources that they need to learn on their own?
Education and knowledge is not really "imparted" to students by teachers or
by anyone else. Students must want to learn. Teachers can only help lead the
way. What disturbs me most is that so many students today seem to want to
only learn what little they think they need to learn, and expect to be told
what will get them where they want to be (or think they want to be). I guess
this is the likely end product of a increasingly shallow and expedient
society.
I've rambled on too long again and spent another hour when I should have been
working on something else!
Richard Burkett -
School of Art, Design, & Art History, SDSU, San Diego, CA 92182
E-mail: richard...@sdsu.edu <-> Voice mail: (619) 594-6201
LEE
Dear Jonathan,
Your recent post poses many questions, far too many to "resolve"
here, but as a University teacher - I would like to respond.
No, I am compelled to respond.
Your post appeared to be from an "academically-bitter" person.
You clearly stated that "grad school was a very valuable experience
for me" but at the same time admitted that "the MFA program I
enrolled in provided no practical skills for making a living in
the real world". Hence, your bitterness, I presume. If I am off-base
please tell me, I don't want to put words into your mouth or read
too much into what you wrote.
The points you make are well taken. Universities, for the most part,
are NOT the training grounds for production potters. BTW, despite my
dislike for the word "production", this is not a negative label. In fact,
many programs frown on making pots at all (maybe we should tackle this one
first!). I think of "academic clay" as a place to learn many diverse
ideas/approaches to clay....and yes, this MIGHT include industrial
design and jiggering. Then again, it might not. If people want to learn
about "clay in the real world", an apprenticeship seems the logical way.
The pitfall of an apprenticeship is that you usually learn the ONE
way it is done (at the pottery where you might be).
I think the BEST way to prepare for the real world is a combination of
both. Academic, followed by an apprenticeship. Do many people in the
U.S. WANT to take on apprentices? It doesn't appear so, or I think
they would be more prevalent. Some of our students take internships
during the summers...working with potters or industry.
BTW, what two programs do you know that teach industrial design? I'd
really like to know for my own sake.
Your post is quite revealing to the situation that potters are faced
with today...namely the competition with jiggered/pressed wares! How can a
"dinosaur potter" compete in these craft-fairs when beside someone
who is practically mass-producing this stuff? I think we have entered
an age where a certain number of people are using machines and lots
of employees to produce pottery. I call this light-industry. NOTHING
IS WRONG WITH THIS IN ITSELF. The problem arises when, next to a
"dinosaur potter", the prices are much lower. The products may look
very much the same, but in fact are quite different. The public often
doesn't care, so they buy the cheaper pot. There IS
a difference and the public should understand this difference. If there
isn't a difference, then the person making the pots on the wheel should
change what they are making. My pots cannot be jiggered.
I think businesses that are "light-industry" should not market their work
in craft fairs, where traditionally things have been made by the
person selling it, and by their own hand. We seem to need a new
line of "craft-fairs" for this industry that is growing or the
dinosaur potter might become really become extinct.
I know that I have probably offended many people out there, and this is
not my intent. Understand that nothing is wrong with jiggered or
ram-pressed work in itself. But to this date, I have never seen a
machine-made piece that has any "life"! It is like comparing an
extruded ceramic sewer pipe to a wheel-thrown cylinder. The former
lacks the energy of its maker, the subtleties, and often the details.
I also believe that many people do not utilize the process and exploit
their designs...why not slip cast an oval? square? hexagon?
Jonathan, I have some suggestions for your proposed assignments. In your
throwing assignment, why not seek DESIGNS that cannot be jiggered?
In your slip cast assignment, include the phrase, "forms cannot be round".
I think the design problems that you allude to are stemming from people
who do not utilize the process! If you know the slip cast work of
Frank Fabens...I think he DOES utilize the process (ie. often not
round, heavily "carved"). No doubt he has employees
because I see the work around, everywhere. (and I don't think this is a
bad thing either).
Have you ever read the book THE NATURE OF ART AND WORKMANSHIP by
David Pye? It debates the differences between something made by-hand
and machine-made. I recommend it to any who are interested in this
topic.
I hope I have not gotten too far off track. Back to the question
about University programs and the real world....I teach in a relatively
large ceramics department. One that seems to balance both pots and
ceramic sculpture and I think this is healthy. My students are very
concerned with "life after graduate school", sometimes more so than
I prefer. But hey, it costs money and some of these kids have big
loans to pay off when they get out. I'm concerned about this too!
We do teach marketing, slide photography, resume-writing, kilnbuilding,
glaze calculation, and yes, some of our students use molds. We haven't
done any jiggering or ram-pressing at this point in time and I do not
foresee it. Part of choosing a school is finding one that offers
what one is looking for.
The MFA degree guarantees nothing. It is not the school, but the
student who ultimately succeeds or not (and this is not a cop-out
either). A school should stress creativity, craftsmanship,
mutual respect for others, and oh yeh, DESIGN. Critiques involve
the formal elements (ie. design) and content (idea). It should promote a
diverse atmosphere conducive to learning and growing toward an individual
artistic direction. It should begin to prepare them for the "real
world", and many might benefit working as an apprentice, if that
is the direction they are going.
Yes Jonathan, you are right...the problem is a lack of design and the
university is a good starting point. Educating the public is
the problem (just look at what sells in our nation's gift shops).
It is difficult to write my thoughts without misinterpretation. That's
why I am more comfortable at my wheel than at this keyboard. I will be
attending NCECA and I truly look forward to the panel discussion.
BTW, I'm going to discuss this in my grad class Tuesday night, I'd like
to know what they think about all of this.
Warmest intentions,
Joe Molinaro
It is good to see Clayart being used as a tool to discuss the various
ideologies of ceramics education and its benefits. Too often we all
become lazy using this medium and simply let cyberspace replace books,
and this recent thread of academia's place in the teaching of the
ceramic arts gives it (and us) new life as we all contemplate our roles
in ceramics.
I have follwed this topic with great interest and, after reading Chris
Staley's article on the role of the university in ceramic education
(CM), I have personally come to disagree with him on a couple of points
as they relate to functional work in schools and pedestal pots. My
first question stems from my confusion as to where and why are potters
"under siege" in academia? We often adopt an attitude in ceramics
that when someone questions why we make things functional, they are
attacking us. And, why do we assume that if a program does not nurture
traditional pottery making that they are undermining what clay programs
are all about? I am thankful there are programs that have this
sculptural focus to claywork for those wishing to work in that area,
just as I am happy to see many programs that nurture the love of the
pot. I have been teaching for 15 years in higher education and am
happy to see both pottery and sculpture being produced in art departments
across the country. This diversity has lead to the production of some
fine artists and exciting work, both of which have benefitted through
its exposure to the other. Under sieige? I doubt it, unless we all
want to believe that what we are doing is the only right path and the
other violates our position. Again, I know far too many potters who are
teaching and support the making of functional pots to believe that
those people out there wanting to make pots are being persucuted for
doing so.
As for _pedestal pots_, why do we as potters find this work so
intimidating, as if this work is going to steal away something that we
own? Afterall, much of the work by ceramists producing _pedestal pots_
is made by potters who entered into claywark as functional potters.
But, if someone 'strays' and begins to explore work in a purely visual
fashion, they are assumed to be selling out to an art market bent on
getting known, or in the case of higher education, getting tenure. Chris
Staley points out in his well written article that the tenure system
has lead to the production of _pedestal pots_. While he is most likely
right in some cases, I find that staement to be far to sweeping to place
everyone who works this way in one category. As a maker of both
functional and pedestal pots, I feel committed to the reasons I do
both, and getting tenure is not always the driving force. My tenure was
granted, I hope, by my passion for working in clay and teaching students
who share that desire. Whether I'm making pots for the table or
sculptural vessels, they hopefully come from a place of honesty. I have
come to believe, for myself, that the objects I produce are about seeing
and using, both of which I deem as functional aspects of being alive.
My work sculpturally has enabled me to _see_ more clearly those things
in clay that I find exciting. Being able to contemplate a form and
surface in a way that allows for a new experience found through this
activity of seeing, is every bit useful (functional) for me as a human
being. As an educator I am bent on the notions of teaching people how
to think and see and feel, as those are also aspects of education that
help make them ready for the 'real' world.
As for this thing called tenure and ceramic shows, I'd like to suggest
that the problem is not so much that professors sell out to make things
for shows since functional work is not accepted. Perhaps we as a
ceramics community need to work more in educating the public (and
galleries) toward appreciating ceramic work, both functional AND
sculptural. There should be more shows made available for functional
potters (?) if we think we need more lines on the resume for tenure.
But, to think that one only needs to produce non-functional pots so they
can get in shows and then get tenure, seems far to simplistic of a
solution as to why this work is produced in the first place.
Well, like so many, I have gone on far too long. I'll try harder to
remain in my corner as moderator of this Clayart group, but please
forgive me when, having read each message as they filter in, I feel
compelled to comment. This topic is worth discussion and believe me when
I say I have learned so much from the various points of view. Again, I
am pleased to see Clayart used as a tool for constructive dialogue.
Like Lee Rexrode, I will allow this dialogue to enter into the
discussions we have in our studio here at EKU.
Thanks,
Joe
*************************************************************
Joe Molinaro INTERNET: artm...@acs.eku.edu
Department of Art BITNET: artmolin@eku
Eastern Kentucky University VOICE: (606) 622-1634
Richmond, KY 40475
*************************************************************
Marie Palluotto
Dear Lee,
You mentioned a panel discussion at NCECA that we might all get to . Which
one
is that please?
Marie
Don Jones
Good Grief Jonathan!
I think this is an issue that everyone can be right on because from each
one's point of view, their history and course of action, acquisition of
skills etc. was the correct one for them.
I personally don't think anyone can squash a committted potter- to- be.
Especially not a fine arts faculty snob. Learning how to throw and finish
a humble mug has vast creative, intellectual, philisophical, and
therapeutic consequences. I think it should be mandatory in every school
system.
The funny part is how they come crawling back around Christmas for a gift.
Don Jones
where it's pseudo-spring in Albuquerque